NationStates Jolt Archive

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.

I take it this thread is aimed at me?

I say let the JAG work. IF they ARE guilty, and they may or may not be, then they will lose their heads over this.

Until then, they are Marines.

I take it this thread is aimed at me?

I say let the JAG work. IF they ARE guilty, and they may or may not be, then they will lose their heads over this.

Until then, they are Marines.
Being Marines doesn't make them special, so get that mistaken thought out of your head. It's only veterans that are special, as they have served full terms in the military and done quite a lot of good, overall.

And no, it was not aimed at you. I'll be honest: sharing the same position as you on anything makes me somewhat ill.

Being Marines doesn't make them special, so get that mistaken thought out of your head. It's only veterans that are special, as they have served full terms in the military and done quite a lot of good, overall.

And no, it was not aimed at you. I'll be honest: sharing the same position as you on anything makes me somewhat ill.
Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.

I do defend the Marines involved in Haditha, until such time they are convicted by court-martial. Until such time they are innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. I give them the same benefit of the doubt I gave Michael Jackson.

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.

I do defend the Marines involved in Haditha, until such time they are convicted by court-martial. Until such time they are innocent.
Eh, I'm iffy on it, if only because not every single military person has placed their lives in jeopardy. I wouldn't exactly call those who are doing paperwork in safe buildings on military bases heroes. But then, that's just my personal opinion. As a person incapable of serving in the military, I probably don't have as good a viewpoint as I should.

(Then there's also the fact that a lot of people who sign up for the military in these days are Bushiveks, which really pisses me off.)

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.
That's silly. Joining the military should not give anyone any sort of extra respect or benefit of the doubt. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics and many others do just as much if not more (depends on whether a war is on, I suppose).

This is what we are talking about here, and no less. I seriously don't see how any of this could have happened without malicious intent by the Marines. And denying that it happened isn't on either, because it was obviously seen both by witnesses and established through autopsies.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,419701,00.html

That's silly. Joining the military should not give anyone any sort of extra respect or benefit of the doubt. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics and many others do just as much if not more (depends on whether a war is on, I suppose).

This is what we are talking about here, and no less. I seriously don't see how any of this could have happened without malicious intent by the Marines. And denying that it happened isn't on either, because it was obviously seen both by witnesses and established through autopsies.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,419701,00.html
As I said in the original post, I do personally believe they were at fault. However, I also believe that unless it is proven in a court of law, they are innocent. That is the way our system of justice works.

Being Marines doesn't make them special, so get that mistaken thought out of your head. It's only veterans that are special, as they have served full terms in the military and done quite a lot of good, overall.
Actually none of them are special.

That's silly. Joining the military should not give anyone any sort of extra respect or benefit of the doubt. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics and many others do just as much if not more (depends on whether a war is on, I suppose).

This is what we are talking about here, and no less. I seriously don't see how any of this could have happened without malicious intent by the Marines. And denying that it happened isn't on either, because it was obviously seen both by witnesses and established through autopsies.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,419701,00.html
You can feel it's silly, but that's your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
I give the exact same credit to policemen, firemen, paramedics, etc as I do US Servicemen and women. Each and everyone of those catagories requires personal sacrifice above and beyond what the avg citizen makes. They do deserve my respect and honor.

You simply don't know what happened at Haditha. Neither do I. Until such time as the investigation is complete, and they have had their trial of their peers, they are innocent.

If they are convicted however, I fully support the maximum punishment required by law.

Actually none of them are special.
That, obviously, is a subject of much controversy. Frankly, I think anyone who served in the military and was constantly in danger, perservered, and survived is a hero. Similarly, we should honor veteran police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and anyone else who similarly puts their life on the line like that. Not only military veterans deserve respect, ya know.

But, that's just my opinion.

I take it this thread is aimed at me?

I say let the JAG work. IF they ARE guilty, and they may or may not be, then they will lose their heads over this.

Until then, they are Marines.
So your sig actually means "Honor until proven guilty"..?

So your sig actually means "Honor until proven guilty"..?

They still have all the benefits of marineship until stripped and sent to leavenworth.

I like this. they [Marines] are special... No they are not...

but few has yet answered nor touched upon the OP's true subject of this thread.

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.
and that answer is simple. Media. the media tells reports and because they don't have all the facts, only one side to be exact, they report that side only. of course the Marines and investigators cannot comment on it without jepordizing the investigation. So with only one side to go with, added with the popularity of blaming the Current Administration for everything, then stir in some sympathetic tones for the 'Victims', and bake with the speed needed to "get the story out first" and you have the marines (or anyone for that matter) tried by the media and hung by the viewers.

Anyone here still thinks OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend?

Anyone here still believes the Micheal Jackson molested those Kids?

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.

You're logic is completely shit. They will be tried in a military court. A court where you are GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. They are guilty until proven otherwise, and the facts are against the pricks.

Bring our troops home...to face war-crimes charges!

Bring our troops home...to face war-crimes charges!
That'd be great.

And actually put them in jail for a decent amount of time.

The woman involved at Abu Graibh (Lindsay something?) was sentenced to something really short, and then actually quietly released after a couple of months.

Which rather suggests that it was Psi-ops, and that people "higher up the chain" were indeed involved.

I take it this thread is aimed at me?

I say let the JAG work. IF they ARE guilty, and they may or may not be, then they will lose their heads over this.

Until then, they are Marines.
Hypocrite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11134080&postcount=28).

Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, unless Muslim. :rolleyes:

That'd be great.

And actually put them in jail for a decent amount of time.

Xie xie! (Thanks!)

But since you're encouraging me...here's how I really feel:

Traveling to another country to kill its citizens is murder, regardless of motivation. Commanding soldiers to to do this is complicity to murder. AND, paying taxes to subsidize such a murderous military and government is also complicity to murder; there is, thus, blood on the hands of the non-military public, and denying this doesn't make one innocent.

How about innocent until proven guilty, unless you are caught in the act?


I refuse to judge a man by acts he may have committed until these acts have been established in the eyes of the law. I am willing and able to overlook my own personal assessments of guilt or innocence when it comes to matters of public justice. And I don't see why others should not do the same.


That said if someone is caught with a bomb and trigger switch inside a hospital, and is somehow stopped from doing so I'm not going to just pretend like this person might somehow magically be innocent because the law hasn't gotten around to formally establishing their guilt.



Maybe DM does have strong biases. I don't care if he does over value the American military man (though in my own personal opinion I don't see how you can do this) or highly under value the muslim fundamentalist. This should not reflect upon the truth or falsity of his arguments. It may reflect upon one's assessment of his character, but it should not lead one to conclude that he is necessarily false in all of his assertions.



On that note I have to sound in on his side against people like Undelia who seem to believe that military men and women are automatically horrible individuals totally undeserving of our respect. Military men and women are willing to defend us against threats to our safety and if they did not exist, then who here is naive enough to honestly think that no one else in this world would try to take what we have?

That said Kyronea I agree with you that other forms of emergency personnel: firefighters, paramedics, SWAT, coast guard, FEMA, etc all are deserving of high degree of respect.


WIth all of this mind I am of the opinion that until a member of any form of emergency personnel (and I consider military to be a big member of this group because state of war tends to be an emergency) disgraces theirself one should hold them in the highest regard. They do the jobs that others quite simply aren't capable of, but are still very necessary. So I will give the Marines the benefit of the doubt until it is shown to be true, at which point they will have disgraced themselves and no longer be worth of the respect accompanying their position.

NT

The marines personally should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The military however, is not afforded that right. Especially not when they themselves have already uncovered wrongdoings, failures in the chain of command, and grievous errors.

Even if no marine is ever convicted of any killing in Haditha, which I personally do not believe will happen, the military will have failed regardless.

This is all I'm going to say about it (some 60-odd years after Oradour-sur-Glane):

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BushsTroops.jpg

Xie xie! (Thanks!)

But since you're encouraging me...here's how I really feel:

Traveling to another country to kill its citizens is murder, regardless of motivation. Commanding soldiers to to do this is complicity to murder. AND, paying taxes to subsidize such a murderous military and government is also complicity to murder; there is, thus, blood on the hands of the non-military public, and denying this doesn't make one innocent.


Your right going to another country to kill its citizens would be murder... But since the soldiers aren't there to kill citizens I think we can leave such talk out of the discussion. Soldiers are there to perform the role of "peacekeeper" and despite whatever negative connotations you associate with that role it is currently a necessary one. Soldiers go after people who presume to bomb places: which includes places like hosptials and schools. The US soldiers probably shouldn't have gone in in the first place. Taking out Hussein and the Iraqi army was probably a bad idea. But now that that is done leaving would cause the country to degenerate into civil war.


So for someone who so obviously supports the value of human life and asserts that being complicit to the killing of civillian is wrong, how can you honestly and without hypocrisy suggest that the military leave Iraq? Wouldn't leaving being complicit to the killing of civlians since an Iraqi civil war would inevitably result in untold number of civlian casualties?



Yeah, I thought so. Call the job of a soldier what you want, but it is a necessary "evil" in this world. The world is filled with people who all live a wine and roses kind of life. And so long as there are people out there who will steal, destroy, or murder some form of defense is going to be necessary.


And as far as war is concerne: civilian casualties, even with the best of intelligence, is inevitable. The military doesn't go around actively trying to kill civilians, and to say otherwise is just pure fabrication. Yeah, some military men lose it. Yeah, some military men aren't of the most noble character. But I blame most of this on a lack of military service.

Military recruitment is down vast amounts compared to what it used to be. The military used to be able to draw from a pool of fairly capable and strong (mentally and emotionally) individuals. The military has since had to incorporate a very lax set of standards when it comes to recruitment. So to all the nay-sayers about military associated tragedy: I say do something about it by joining the military and making sure that stuff doesn't happen. Its really easy to sit back here in the safety of the states and armchair quarterback the US military, but its another thing entirely to actually be out there doing something about it.

NT

Your right going to another country to kill its citizens would be murder... But since the soldiers aren't there to kill citizens I think we can leave such talk out of the discussion. Soldiers are there to perform the role of "peacekeeper" and despite whatever negative connotations you associate with that role it is currently a necessary one.
Psst! Not peacekeepers, but occupants. *nods*

Here's the thing...by legal principals we have to believe the soliders are innocent, until they are proven guilty in a military court.

Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, unless Muslim. :rolleyes:
Or unless he wants to bang them, apparently.

Is Iraq not in a state of civil war already? Even combatants are citizens. Killing them is murder.

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.

I do defend the Marines involved in Haditha, until such time they are convicted by court-martial. Until such time they are innocent.

Agreed 100%

Hypocrite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11134080&postcount=28).

Don't be silly, everyone knows Muslims don't count. :rolleyes:

Bring our troops home...to face war-crimes charges!

:rolleyes:

Such a childish remark. And charge them with what?

Xie xie! (Thanks!)

But since you're encouraging me...here's how I really feel:

Traveling to another country to kill its citizens is murder, regardless of motivation.

And here is where I stopped reading for the simple reason being that we do not go to another country to kill its citizens. We can do that without the ground troops but have we? No. Why? Because we do not do it on purpose. Accidents happen yes. Civilians dying in war is a tragedy but it is unavoidable in a war.

Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, unless Muslim. :rolleyes:
Or don't agree with you of course:eek:

Is Iraq not in a state of civil war already? Even combatants are citizens. Killing them is murder.

No. Iraq is not in a state of civil war.

No. Iraq is not in a state of civil war.


Yet.

Surely you can see that the lack of cooperation between the Sunnis, and Khurds, or the Khurds and everyone else....isnt temporary.
Theyre never going to be able to ratify a solid agreement, much less a Constitution.

Surely, you can see that the country is sliding into civil war.

If a country is "sliding" into civil war, I'll argue that it's already in one. What is a civil war if Iraq is not so embroiled already? One or more indigenous factions waging an organized military campaign to topple a government is a civil war. It's underway.

And here is where I stopped reading for the simple reason being that we do not go to another country to kill its citizens. We can do that without the ground troops but have we? No. Why? Because we do not do it on purpose. Accidents happen yes. Civilians dying in war is a tragedy but it is unavoidable in a war.

Naive idiot. Why are US troops in Columbia napalming coca farms? On accident? Carpet-bombing Baghdad and subsequent door-to-door raids accidentally killed 100,000 civilians (Chomsky)? Go back to your Bible thumping.

That, obviously, is a subject of much controversy. Frankly, I think anyone who served in the military and was constantly in danger, perservered, and survived is a hero. Similarly, we should honor veteran police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and anyone else who similarly puts their life on the line like that. Not only military veterans deserve respect, ya know.
.
Alternatively they might have seen no action and done nothing but training exercises in their career (hypothetically speaking), surely you should judge based on their actual actions rather than their uniforms.

Is it really that difficult to y'know, wait for an investigation to finish? Especially considering some pretty big holes in the official report?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5566

(a) On November 20, 2005, Reuters reported that on the previous day an IED killed a US Marine and 15 civilians in Haditha, a town known to be a center of the insurgency, a town as hostile to our forces as the better known Fallujah was. Reuters reported that “immediately after the blast, gunmen opened fire on the convoy” and US and Iraqi forces returned fire, killing 8 insurgents and wounding another in the fight. The paper further reported that “A cameraman working for Reuters in Haditha says bodies had been left lying in the street for hours after the attack.” Reuters never named this cameraman but he was almost undoubtedly Ali al-Mashhadani.

(b) Ali al-Mashhadani had been imprisoned for five months before his report because of his ties to insurgents. He was subsequently placed under another 12 days in detention for being a security threat.

(c) Tim McGirk of Time wrote about the incident at Haditha for the March 27 issue of the magazine. He unsuccessfully lobbied his editors to use the term “massacre” in the story. McGirk seems hardly a neutral reporter. He spent the first Thanksgiving after 9/11 in Afghanistan dining with the Taliban and concluding of this celebratory meal:

Our missing colleagues finally arrive, and I leave thinking that maybe this evening wasn’t very different from the original Thanksgiving: people from two warring cultures sharing a meal together and realizing, briefly, that we’re not so different after all.

Right, Tim. We all want to enslave women, bend the world to Sharia law, behead nonbelievers and otherwise carry on the honored traditions of the Taliban.

A key source for McGirk’s report that US Marines in Haditha had deliberately attacked civilians was Thaer al-Hadithi. whom McGirk inexplicably described as “a budding journalism student”. He is a middle-aged man, and was subsequently described by the AP as an “Iraqi investigator.”

McGirk also failed to note that Hadithi is “a member and spokesman for the Hammurabi.” The chairman of Hammurabi Organization and Hadithi’s partner in publicizing the “massacre” is Abdul–Rahman al-Mashhadani. It is unknown if he is related to Ali al-Mashhadani but their names suggest a possible relationship, and it beggars belief that as Sweetness& Light notes,

“Abdel Rahman al-Mashhadani just happened to be given a video by and unnamed local. And that he then turned it over to Ali al-Mashhadani who just happens to make videos for Reuters.”

Hadithi’s story is that was staying near to one of the two houses where the massacre occurred and saw it with his own eyes. According to his version of events he waited one day to videotape what had occurred, though apparently nothing prevented his doing so from the very window he “watched” it from as it took place. More troubling is why he waited months to turn the tape over to anyone.

The actions of his partner al-Mashhadani are equally puzzling. On December 15, 2005 Mashhadani was interviewed by the Institute for War and Peace which described him as “an election monitor.” In that interview he expressed great satisfaction with the election turnout (which in fact was terribly low in Haditha). Why did he not mention to this apparently sympathetic group one word about the supposed “atrocity” which he claimed had occurred three months earlier?

Hammurabi apparently did share the video in March with the largely Soros-funded Human Rights Watch which in turn provided it to Time.

(d) The videotape. On March 21, 2006 Reuters reported that Hadithi and Mashhadani’s organization, the Hammurabi Organization, had provided the organization was a copy of a videotape showing corpses lined up in the Haditha morgue, claiming these were the bodies of civilians deliberately killed by the Marines. Aside from the suspiciously-timed release of the video and the fact that chairman al-Mashhadani had never mentioned the incident or the tape in December when he was interviewed, the video shows people removing bodies from a home, a report at odds with the Reuters report the day after the incident which spoke of bodies lying in the street.

(e) The witnesses to the “massacre”

(1) The Doctor.

In the March 27 report, McGirk quotes the local doctor:

Dr. Wahid, director of the local hospital in Haditha, who asked that his family name be withheld because, he says, he fears reprisals by U.S. troops, says the Marines brought 24 bodies to his hospital around midnight on Nov. 19. Wahid says the Marines claimed the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb. “But it was obvious to us that there were no organs slashed by shrapnel,” Wahid says. “The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the chest and the head–from close range.”

Another report however, indicates the doctor bore considerable animus to the US troops.

(2)The Iraqi eye-witnesses.

In “Haditha: Reasonable Doubt,” Andrew Walden describes how a similar case against British soldiers fell apart , describing the Arabic “blood money” tradition which hardly is as exotic as it sounds. Ask the American Trial Lawyers Association.

Reports of the eyewitnesses are conflicting and incredible. Al-Haditha was the source of a report by the AP on the death of a man whom the Washington Post quoted 10 times as an eyewitness on May 27, six months after his reported death, and the young girl “survivor” has given between two and four utterly inconsistent (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/06/haditha_lies_ex.html) versions of the events.

(3) The American eye witnesses.

There are two American witnesses who have spoken out. Despite the press spin, neither has a first hand account of the events.

Lance Cpl. James Crossan is the source of some very selective quotes on the incident. He, however, was wounded in the IED explosion which killed the US Marine Martin Terrazas. He was evacuated from the scene and saw none of the after-action.

And then there is Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones. He helped evacuate Crossnan and took bodies to the morgue. He was not an eyewitness. He claims he took pictures of the bodies at the morgue and has made various statements about what happened to the pictures and his camera. Aside from the fact that he is not an eyewitness, and his claims about his photographs seem unlikely, his story remained unuttered until he was arrested for stealing a truck, driving under the influence and crashing the stolen vehicle into a house. It was then for the first time that he claimed post traumatic distress and pointed to Haditha as the source of that stress. (His report of taking the bodies to the morgue, moreover, seems inconsistent with the first Reuters report that there were 15 bodies left lying in the street the day after the incident.)

Surely you can see that the lack of cooperation between the Sunnis, and Khurds, or the Khurds and everyone else....isnt temporary.

Lack of co-operation? That's a pretty kind euphamism for "They're blowing the shit out of each other on a daily basis."

And here's a warcrimes charge for Bush and Blair: Invading a sovereign nation (and member of the UN) with the intention of regime change. They should both hang.

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.

no it isnt, its just that they have no money and their only choice is to join the miltary.

you dont see rich people in the army, only the poor
(except future politicians, but they just want publicity)

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.
*starts vomiting profusely*
I do defend the Marines involved in Haditha, until such time they are convicted by court-martial. Until such time they are innocent.
Until they have their day in court, they should be suspended from active duty.

no it isnt, its just that they have no money and their only choice is to join the miltary.

you dont see rich people in the army, only the poor
(except future politicians, but they just want publicity)

Really? Do you have any proof of this? Or are you just talking out your ass?

no it isnt, its just that they have no money and their only choice is to join the miltary.

you dont see rich people in the army, only the poor
(except future politicians, but they just want publicity)

Excuse me, as an upper-middle class white kid with no political ambitions speaking here, I'm planning on joining the Marines when I get older, so :upyours: you.

Excuse me, as an upper-middle class white kid with no political ambitions speaking here, I'm planning on joining the Marines when I get older, so :upyours: you.
Just don't go expecting to be held in high regard from all quarters.

Just don't go expecting to be held in high regard from all quarters.

Trust me, I don't. Some of the folks around here give dirty looks to people they know are in the military or have relatives in the military. It's very sad, really. :headbang:

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.


I'll defend their right to be innocent until proven guilty . But if they are guilty of cold blooded murder of women children and men..all civilian non combatants...there is no defense. They are no better than the scum we are fighting and deserve the harshest punishment available . In fact they deserve more for tarnishing their brothers in arms with their actions .

They deserve a Marine firing squad .

(Then there's also the fact that a lot of people who sign up for the military in these days are Bushiveks, which really pisses me off.)

Nah, as can be indicated by the "Retired Junta" railing against Rumsfailed, the military culture and rules prevent you from saying anything that doesn't support the current administration in office.

Real Busheviks don't sign up to be in the military, they join Operation Yellow Elephant and more specifically, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

I won't be surprised if the defense brings up the Asymmetrical Warfare version of the Menendez Defense and the Marines end up being acquitted on that.

"Your honor, those dirty brown-skinned Muslims let our troops gun them down to damage troop morale and turn public opinion against the United States."

"Case dismissed." THUNK.

When I heard about this, my first thought was "Jesus Christ, what are they doing to those poor bastards to make them act this way?". I don't doubt that there was indeed a deliberate killing of people in retaliation for a roadside bombing. What will happen to those involved is up to those sitting on their ourts martial. The real problem lies with the chain of command, and in particular the Defense Department. Servicemen and women are sent over there to 'fight the war on terror', etc. What they find themselves in is a civil war. Trying to defend themselves while following orders, supposedly rooting out insurgents and terrorists. They see the Iraqis fighting each other. They know all the people that they kill are not insurgents nor terrorists. They also know that they are on a mission that has no clear objective and can't possibly succeed. The soldiers are essentially trapped in a world of indiscriminate death. Tour extensions and multiple tours can't help but affect the mind of anyone involved. Now, after we've created our killer zombies, we are horrified that they do what they do. I don't argue that there should not be punishment for those involved. What I'm saying is that we need to take a long serious look at what we think we're accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many American servicemen we're willing to destoy (not KIA's, I mean the survivors) in order to do it. Those Marines knew what they were doing was wrong. The problem is the environment they're in, and their leadership, made it very easy for them to justify in their minds murdering non-combat personnel. The true criminals work at the pentagon, and they'll never answer for what they've done.

*shrug*

Their lawyers must defend them.
As for me, I wait for a legal decision.

Anyone here still thinks OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend?


Yes


Anyone here still believes the Micheal Jackson molested those Kids?

Yes

I won't be surprised if the defense brings up the Asymmetrical Warfare version of the Menendez Defense and the Marines end up being acquitted on that.

"Your honor, those dirty brown-skinned Muslims let our troops gun them down to damage troop morale and turn public opinion against the United States."

"Case dismissed." THUNK.
It's scary because it might become true :(

Why not incarcerate the marines on Gitmo while their case is beeing rviewed? Oh, wait, can't do that 'cus they're special... Yeah, right, marines are Power Rangers, defending the good from the evil. Bloody medieval mindset!

What really gets to me is the amount of time between the act and the investigation.

Why not incarcerate the marines on Gitmo while their case is beeing rviewed? Oh, wait, can't do that 'cus they're special... Yeah, right, marines are Power Rangers, defending the good from the evil. Bloody medieval mindset!

What really gets to me is the amount of time between the act and the investigation.
You mean that four months isn't a normal delay before investigating a possible murder? :eek:

That explains CSI

no it isnt, its just that they have no money and their only choice is to join the miltary.

you dont see rich people in the army, only the poor
(except future politicians, but they just want publicity)
I come a very well of family and I'm in NROTC and want a career in the Navy. You are a moron. Most of the people I know in my NROTC batallion are in a similar situation.

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.
I think Michael Savage already stated his opinion, adn it was the same as your is here. Mine is as well. If they're guilty, they deserve death, but if they're not...

Yes

Yes
thanks for proving my point. :D

You're logic is completely shit. They will be tried in a military court. A court where you are GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. They are guilty until proven otherwise, and the facts are against the pricks.
You obviously have no idea of which you speak.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060611/ts_nm/iraq_haditha_sergeant_dc_2

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the investigations of the deaths.

"He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians," he said.

The Post said Wuterich's account was the first public version of what happened in Haditha from a Marine who was on the ground when the shooting occurred.

So, I will let the military conduct an Article 32 investigation to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. If there is, I will wait for the court to decide after they hear all the evidence.

no it isnt, its just that they have no money and their only choice is to join the miltary.

you dont see rich people in the army, only the poor
(except future politicians, but they just want publicity)
You also have no idea what you are talking about.
The military is NOT populated by only the poor.
There are middle class as well as upper class in the ranks of the military.
To say otherwise is either a lie or you are just drinking the koolaid.

Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, unless Muslim. :rolleyes:
I wish people would stop targeting such idiocy at me. Especially you, as a mod, TG. You know me better than that. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be villifyed until it is absolutely certain, proven in a court of law. I say the same thing about ANYONE. Period.

You're logic is completely shit. They will be tried in a military court. A court where you are GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. They are guilty until proven otherwise, and the facts are against the pricks.

They are innoccent until proven guilty. If they are cleared, they will STILL have a massive blackmark on their record....

You also have no idea what you are talking about.
The military is NOT populated by only the poor.
There are middle class as well as upper class in the ranks of the military.
To say otherwise is either a lie or you are just drinking the koolaid.

+1 bazillion.

The ranks of the enlisted are populated almost entirely by what could only be described as "poor people" because they make so little money.

Yes, there are indeed quite a few middle class individuals in the modern military, but to claim that America's upper class has any kind of significant representation in the US military is a sign of complete ignorance of the demographics.

Even the highest ranking admirals/generals can't really be thought of as anything but "rich." They certainly aren't wealthy, and very few rank amongst the members of America's social elite.

NT

In reply to the person who said that Marines are special, because they are marines. If by special you mean (and excuse the un-pc language here) window licking kinda special, you know wot I mean. Then I'm goping to have to disagree with you.

Our armed forces are not special, any more than our bus drivers are. Some of them I guess can be called brave, but if I was trained as a profesinal soldier, braveness underfire and in shitty situations, I would expect to be trained for.

They are not special thet are just doing their jobs. And the really shitty thing about that is after they have finished with the re-conditioning of their minds, and after they have been turned into professinal killers, and after they have done their term, and seen and done things that most of us wouldn't and all of this because their employer(the goverment) tell them to. After all of this they are just let go, with no help or un-conditioning of their minds, no re-training to intergrate back into society, and then we wonder why so many ex-service people get in trouble.

I don'y like war, I don't particularly like soliders, I think a lot of them are frankly wankers, but the blame for this I lay at the door of the goverments that do this to people.

And yes there are some middle class and higer classes in the service, but these are not squddies, these people are their leaders. The rank and file is now, as it always has been, and as I suspect it will always be, made up of the poor who even if they are smart enough to not fall for the crap that they hear form the recruiters, still have no other choice.

It's all crap, the goverment treats em like crap, who wants that crap!
Boycot the armed forces, and don't let any more of us be killed for a goverment that is not going to look after you when you have killed for it, heh thats what I say anyhow.

Naive idiot.

I would suggest you stop with the name calling. It really is inappropriate. It detracts from whatever point you tried to make.

Honestly, I cant imagine any situation in which marines would justifiably kill a slew of Iraqis including the women and children. Unless the infants were wielding RPGs of course...

In reply to the person who said that Marines are special, because they are marines. If by special you mean (and excuse the un-pc language here) window licking kinda special, you know wot I mean. Then I'm goping to have to disagree with you.

Our armed forces are not special, any more than our bus drivers are. Some of them I guess can be called brave, but if I was trained as a profesinal soldier, braveness underfire and in shitty situations, I would expect to be trained for.

They are not special thet are just doing their jobs. And the really shitty thing about that is after they have finished with the re-conditioning of their minds, and after they have been turned into professinal killers, and after they have done their term, and seen and done things that most of us wouldn't and all of this because their employer(the goverment) tell them to. After all of this they are just let go, with no help or un-conditioning of their minds, no re-training to intergrate back into society, and then we wonder why so many ex-service people get in trouble.

I don'y like war, I don't particularly like soliders, I think a lot of them are frankly wankers, but the blame for this I lay at the door of the goverments that do this to people.

And yes there are some middle class and higer classes in the service, but these are not squddies, these people are their leaders. The rank and file is now, as it always has been, and as I suspect it will always be, made up of the poor who even if they are smart enough to not fall for the crap that they hear form the recruiters, still have no other choice.

It's all crap, the goverment treats em like crap, who wants that crap!
Boycot the armed forces, and don't let any more of us be killed for a goverment that is not going to look after you when you have killed for it, heh thats what I say anyhow.

Your head is so firmly up your arse, I´m surprised you don´t need oxygen piped in.

I was going to type more, but frankly your bigotry isn´t worth more of a rebuff.

The "other" side of the story ?


[quote]
CNN International
Marine lawyer calls Haditha `tragic' but lawful
San Jose Mercury News - 13 hours ago
SAN DIEGO - The lawyer for a Marine being investigated in the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, described the event as "tragic," but denied innocent people were killed intentionally and said troops followed military rules of engagement. ...
US Marine says rules followed at Haditha - Report Reuters.uk
Lawyer: Marine denies Haditha massacre Seattle Post Intelligencer
JURIST - WALB-TV - CNN - WTNH - all 475 related »

[quote]

Being Marines does indeed make them special. They are willing to sacrifice for their country, something that not everyone is willing to do.

I do defend the Marines involved in Haditha, until such time they are convicted by court-martial. Until such time they are innocent.
Everyone is special in some way or another.

Honestly, I cant imagine any situation in which marines would justifiably kill a slew of Iraqis including the women and children. Unless the infants were wielding RPGs of course...


Bullets go through walls and windows and do not always hit the intended victim.

Bullets go through walls and windows and do not always hit the intended victim.

One thing, though: within the ME, tweens having firepower is not uncommon.

*waits for the trial - with patience aplenty*

Your head is so firmly up your arse, I´m surprised you don´t need oxygen piped in.

I was going to type more, but frankly your bigotry isn´t worth more of a rebuff.


Hah I'm bigoted about what, what the armed forces do to our kids? Well if that's bigoted, then yeah I guess I am, and you know wot, I'm proud to be so.

But for the record, please give me an example of this bigoted attitude?

Hah I'm bigoted about what, what the armed forces do to our kids? Well if that's bigoted, then yeah I guess I am, and you know wot, I'm proud to be so.

But for the record, please give me an example of this bigoted attitude?

Gee, when I enlisted in the infantry, I had a college degree from the University of Virginia, and was employed at the time as a programmer. After I left the Army (after five years, including time in combat) I attended George Mason Law School and became a lawyer.

So I guess you're going to say I was a poor person who just HAD to join the military for a job (wrong!).

I met quite a few people like me in the Army infantry as enlisted men. In fact, the number of people with college degrees as enlisted outnumbered the officers several times over.

I will tell you however, that a highly educated man doesn't fare any better in a situation involving life or death decisions than an uneducated man.

Bullets go through walls and windows and do not always hit the intended victim.

So, marines were just firing at walls and windows?

So, marines were just firing at walls and windows?
Until there is a court martial, and evidence is presented, you're pulling "facts" out of your ass. Nice to know you'll condemn anything the US does, even if the "facts" are just assertions by the press, but you'll defend the innocence of any terrorist until the actual pronouncement of the guilty sentence.

I have to say, my own reaction to Haditha is largely colored by the defensive responses to it. The general reaction seemed to be, "No way, never happened! You're a traitor for suggesting it! Marines would never, ever do such a thing! But if they did, here's a list of reasons why it would be ok!"

What makes me sad is that at no point was I surprised to hear about this "incident." It's gotten that bad. After the various prison abuses, I figured it was only a matter of time before the next My Lai.

I have to say, my own reaction to Haditha is largely colored by the defensive responses to it. The general reaction seemed to be, "No way, never happened! You're a traitor for suggesting it! Marines would never, ever do such a thing! But if they did, here's a list of reasons why it would be ok!"

What makes me sad is that at no point was I surprised to hear about this "incident." It's gotten that bad. After the various prison abuses, I figured it was only a matter of time before the next My Lai.

If you knew anything about military history, you would know that these sorts of things happen in virtually any army over time in a conflict.

It's not a matter of official policy, or a degeneration in discipline.

Read John Keegan and the various psychological studies that came out after WW II. On the nature of why men commit atrocities.

It's unavoidable in prolonged conflict.

Gee, when I enlisted in the infantry, I had a college degree from the University of Virginia, and was employed at the time as a programmer. After I left the Army (after five years, including time in combat) I attended George Mason Law School and became a lawyer.

So I guess you're going to say I was a poor person who just HAD to join the military for a job (wrong!).

I met quite a few people like me in the Army infantry as enlisted men. In fact, the number of people with college degrees as enlisted outnumbered the officers several times over.

I will tell you however, that a highly educated man doesn't fare any better in a situation involving life or death decisions than an uneducated man.


Yeah thanks but I asked to be shown examples of where I was bigoted not examples of overgeneralistions.

Okay do we realy have to do this then? We all over generalise, you know this, i know this everybody knows this. So whatever we all say, we don't mean exceptions to the rule considered.

I'm glad that you where not poor and choose to go into the armed services, I'm glader that you got out without seemingly any 'issuses', now you tell me as somebody who has been there and done that, do you feel that your goverment looked after you whilst you where serving your country, and do you feel your goverment looked after you as you left that service?

If you knew anything about military history, you would know that these sorts of things happen in virtually any army over time in a conflict.

What about my post led you to believe I was unaware of that fact?


It's not a matter of official policy, or a degeneration in discipline.

I think those things may be a factor in some cases, though I couldn't say anything specifically about this incident. Certainly, some such abuses have been the result of official policies, or degeneration of discipline, but there can also be many other factors involved.


Read John Keegan and the various psychological studies that came out after WW II. On the nature of why men commit atrocities.

It's unavoidable in prolonged conflict.
I think the dehumanization of the enemy does, as you say, make this sort of thing inevitable. If one is going to be able to go out and kill other people in combat, one often must put aside any thoughts about the humanity of those other people. For most people, it's very hard to shoot another person if you think about how they have a mom and a dad, how they might have kids who love them, how they probably have dreams and hopes and silly hobbies much like your own. Our sense of empathy gets in the way of calculated killing.

Instead, the enemy must be the enemy, and perhaps after the battle one may have the luxury of meditating on the emotional significance of killing. Or perhaps not.

A great many soldiers manage to retain their empathy despite having to hit a "pause button" on it during combat itself. Others have a harder time figuring out how to handle this. When you combine the inherent difficulty of this effort with the stress and environment of war, I would have to agree that it is inevitable for there to be "incidents" like some of the ones history has recorded for us.

Until there is a court martial, and evidence is presented, you're pulling "facts" out of your ass. Nice to know you'll condemn anything the US does, even if the "facts" are just assertions by the press, but you'll defend the innocence of any terrorist until the actual pronouncement of the guilty sentence.

The facts are that 24 Iraqis including women and children were massacred. Id like to see you explain why.

I'm glad that you where not poor and choose to go into the armed services, I'm glader that you got out without seemingly any 'issuses', now you tell me as somebody who has been there and done that, do you feel that your goverment looked after you whilst you where serving your country, and do you feel your goverment looked after you as you left that service?

I was looked after very well, but that depends far more on your local chain of command than it does "who is President" or "who is in charge of Congress".

I heard many discussions between officers who openly spoke of sedition when Clinton took office - right after he took office - because of his very hostility to the military.

Among other policies in his first term, he had a ban on Pentagon officers wearing uniforms in the White House.

After the Blackhawk Down debacle, officers generally mistrusted Clinton, and thought any idea he had was going to turn out to be a screwjob. Unless the officer was polishing his brass to get promoted (Clark), they thought he stank.

But, that passed. And, yes, I do feel I am still being taken care of.

If you knew anything about military history, you would know that these sorts of things happen in virtually any army over time in a conflict.

DOES


NOT


JUSTIFY.

DOES


NOT


JUSTIFY.

I'm not saying it justifies it. I am correcting a common misconception that somehow this is the result of a breakdown in discipline, or somehow a US-only phenomenon.

I was looked after very well, but that depends far more on your local chain of command than it does "who is President" or "who is in charge of Congress".

I heard many discussions between officers who openly spoke of sedition when Clinton took office - right after he took office - because of his very hostility to the military.

Among other policies in his first term, he had a ban on Pentagon officers wearing uniforms in the White House.

After the Blackhawk Down debacle, officers generally mistrusted Clinton, and thought any idea he had was going to turn out to be a screwjob. Unless the officer was polishing his brass to get promoted (Clark), they thought he stank.

But, that passed. And, yes, I do feel I am still being taken care of.


Then I feel doubly happy for you, coz I know a lot of squadies, and ex squadies that cannot say that at all.

Then I feel doubly happy for you, coz I know a lot of squadies, and ex squadies that cannot say that at all.
Then your immediate chain of command sucked.

I have a great many friends who are in service now, or were recently in service, over on lightfighter.net, and none of them feel that way.

I get the impression you were never in the US military.

It's unavoidable in prolonged conflict

maybe so but that doesnt make it any less unacceptable.

its like saying death is unavoidable, with terminal cancer...sure it is, but its still sad

maybe so but that doesnt make it any less unacceptable.

its like saying death is unavoidable, with terminal cancer...sure it is, but its still sad

You will note that I am not saying it is acceptable or excusable.

It's just not preventable, like some people think. Studies have been done into this sort of thing since WW II - and the psychologists haven't come up with any way to prevent it from happenning.

Hah I'm bigoted about what, what the armed forces do to our kids? Well if that's bigoted, then yeah I guess I am, and you know wot, I'm proud to be so.

But for the record, please give me an example of this bigoted attitude?
Hmmm let's see if we can find some, shall we?
professinal killers
I don't particularly like soliders
I think a lot of them are frankly wankers
made up of the poor who even if they are smart enough to not fall for the crap that they hear form the recruiters, still have no other choice
It's all crap, the goverment treats em like crap, who wants that crap!
You really don't know what you are talking about. As a retired member of the US Military, I know that the enlisted ranks are not just filled with the "poor".
Frankly, you're just talking out your ass.

Hmmm let's see if we can find some, shall we?
You really don't know what you are talking about. As a retired member of the US Military, I know that the enlisted ranks are not just filled with the "poor".
Frankly, you're just talking out your ass.

Heheh and that is bigoted is it?

Let me see, the goverment does not take people and then train them to kill, nor can it be said that the armed services are proffesinal. Is that what you are saying?

I don't particularly like soliders, because of the kind of people that they turn into once the forces have done with them, this comes from personal experianse, too many late night run ins and fights in bars, too many ex friends turned into wankers . I don't like racists either for what they are and what they say and what their ideas are, nor do I like Christianity, but are these views bigoted? I say no, especily if you take your next example 'I think most of them...' Did you see that word most?


Bascialy what I said, and all I'm saying is, I do not think that the armed service does right by thoses who volunter for it. Our goverments take in kids, teach them how to kill, in efect re-program or brainwash their minds. Then when they come out, when there term is up, they get thrown away, our goverment no longer cares for them, they do not get re-programed, nor do they recive enough phsyological help.

If you disagree with that, or if you think that I am bigoted because of that, then I guess there is nowt I can do about that.

I know soldiers, I know ex soliders, and all of my freinds and I do mean all of them that joined up, are differant now, and not in a good way. in short the Army has fucked them up, and done a really goodd job about it.

Do I sound bitter? I guess I am, but bigoted, naaaaa not a chance.

Heheh and that is bigoted is it?

Let me see, the goverment does not take people and then train them to kill, nor can it be said that the armed services are proffesinal. Is that what you are saying?

I don't particularly like soliders, because of the kind of people that they turn into once the forces have done with them, this comes from personal experianse, too many late night run ins and fights in bars, too many ex friends turned into wankers . I don't like racists either for what they are and what they say and what their ideas are, nor do I like Christianity, but are these views bigoted? I say no, especily if you take your next example 'I think most of them...' Did you see that word most?


Bascialy what I said, and all I'm saying is, I do not think that the armed service does right by thoses who volunter for it. Our goverments take in kids, teach them how to kill, in efect re-program or brainwash their minds. Then when they come out, when there term is up, they get thrown away, our goverment no longer cares for them, they do not get re-programed, nor do they recive enough phsyological help.

If you disagree with that, or if you think that I am bigoted because of that, then I guess there is nowt I can do about that.

I know soldiers, I know ex soliders, and all of my freinds and I do mean all of them that joined up, are differant now, and not in a good way. in short the Army has fucked them up, and done a really goodd job about it.

Do I sound bitter? I guess I am, but bigoted, naaaaa not a chance.

Speaking as a graduate of the Georgia School for Wayward Boys, Sand Hill, A-3-1, Summer of 1987, I can speak quite firmly that there is NO brainwashing going on in Basic Training in the US Army today.

a couple other threads i have defemded them...

they did what was nesseacary.

whether it was right or not

that is up for debate

I don't particularly like soliders, because of the kind of people that they turn into once the forces have done with them, this comes from personal experianse, too many late night run ins and fights in bars, too many ex friends turned into wankers . I don't like racists either for what they are and what they say and what their ideas are, nor do I like Christianity, but are these views bigoted? I say no, especily if you take your next example 'I think most of them...' Did you see that word most?

Do you really think that the armed forces turn them into those type of people, or do you think people with that disposition tend to join the armed forces at a higher rate than other professions?

I've never met anyone in the armed forces who turned into a wanker that wasn't a wanker before they joined.

Do you really think that the armed forces turn them into those type of people, or do you think people with that disposition tend to join the armed forces at a higher rate than other professions?

I've never met anyone in the armed forces who turned into a wanker that wasn't a wanker before they joined.


Naaa it's definatly the former, and in my experiance the army gets em at what 17-18, before they really have matured, turns em into wankers and then turns em out without the de-wankering.

Heh so they get the wankering, but not the de-wankering?

Naaa it's definatly the former, and in my experiance the army gets em at what 17-18, before they really have matured, turns em into wankers and then turns em out without the de-wankering.

Heh so they get the wankering, but not the de-wankering?

So, lets assume it occurs in the military. People often modify the way they think, behave, and act when influenced by large groups. Its a case of the mob mentality.

But, is this the fault of the Army, or is this the fault of the actual people within the mob? I mean, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the Army does it, and that they don't do it to themselves via mob mentality?

And if you believe its the armed forces, how do you explain all of the people who don't turn into wankers and yet are acknowledged as good soldiers? If being a wanker is part of the armed forces agenda, how do they function in the armed forces without being wankers?

Until there is a court martial, and evidence is presented, you're pulling "facts" out of your ass. Nice to know you'll condemn anything the US does, even if the "facts" are just assertions by the press, but you'll defend the innocence of any terrorist until the actual pronouncement of the guilty sentence.

there are 2 undisputed facts here DK

1: 24 civilians died of 5.52 caliblre gunshot wounds

2: the USMC lied about the circumstances of these deaths.

you can be as aggressive as you like, but this is a massacre and all we are waiting on is damage control from the pentagon.

and another 'fact' is those shouting loudest about innocence until proof other wise are those who are staunchest in denying the same rights to the detainees in Gitmo.

its an appaling state of affairs.

there are 2 undisputed facts here DK

1: 24 civilians died of 5.52 caliblre gunshot wounds

2: the USMC lied about the circumstances of these deaths.

you can be as aggressive as you like, but this is a massacre and all we are waiting on is damage control from the pentagon.

and another 'fact' is those shouting loudest about innocence until proof other wise are those who are staunchest in denying the same rights to the detainees in Gitmo.

its an appaling state of affairs.

What gun shoots 5.52?

there are 2 undisputed facts here DK

1: 24 civilians died of 5.52 caliblre gunshot wounds

2: the USMC lied about the circumstances of these deaths.

you can be as aggressive as you like, but this is a massacre and all we are waiting on is damage control from the pentagon.

and another 'fact' is those shouting loudest about innocence until proof other wise are those who are staunchest in denying the same rights to the detainees in Gitmo.

its an appaling state of affairs.


5.52mm is not a US calibre - in any US weapon.

You seem to be appallingly ignorant.

Do you really think that the armed forces turn them into those type of people, or do you think people with that disposition tend to join the armed forces at a higher rate than other professions?

I've never met anyone in the armed forces who turned into a wanker that wasn't a wanker before they joined.
I think it may be a bit of both, myself.

In a way, it's kind of like religious belief; some people who are wankers join wankerish religious sects and become even bigger wankers because the other wankers are encouraging them to wank.

On the other hand, some people who aren't really wankers to start with may join a wankerish group without really knowing what kind of wankery they're getting into, and being surrounded by wankers may bring out their inner wanker in a way that might never have happened if things had turned out differently.

The funny thing about the military is that it can have a very different impact on different people. Some people may have experiences that increase their wankery, while others may find that the military reduces their wankish tendencies. Two different people who are in the same unit may even have different experiences, based on who they are to begin with.

It's too complicated a situation to generalize one way or the other; the military might make some people into bigger wankers, might leave some wankers essentially unchanged, and might reform some who were wankers when they joined up.

5.52mm is not a US calibre - in any US weapon.

You seem to be appallingly ignorant.

What gun shoots 5.52?


thats what you focus on in my post.

baaaaaa. yes mr president. baaaaa

thats what you focus on in my post.

baaaaaa. yes mr president. baaaaa

If that's what you're presenting as evidence, yes, that's what I'll focus on.

You are laughable.

thats what you focus on in my post.

baaaaaa. yes mr president. baaaaa

Well you're stating "facts". I guess questioning "facts" is now a sheepish attitude now? I thought you were supposed to question authority? Which is it? Or are personal attacks the high point here?

thats what you focus on in my post.

baaaaaa. yes mr president. baaaaa
To be fair, you presented two facts to support your case, and one of them appears to be critically flawed. It's not sheep-like for people to notice that 50% of your case is already questionable.

To be fair, you presented two facts to support your case, and one of them appears to be critically flawed. It's not sheep-like for people to notice that 50% of your case is already questionable.
I'm more than willing to believe that something well worth investigating and prosecuting took place at Haditha.

I'm not willing to believe for a second that it's official policy from the President on down to wantonly slaughter unarmed civilians.

If that was policy, almost everyone in Iraq would already be dead.

Im sure he meant 5.56.

Come on, guys. I dont expect much but I expect better.

Im sure he meant 5.56.

Come on, guys. I dont expect much but I expect better.

It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.

It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.

Because he (possibly) made a typo?

On the behalf of which people were these marines sacrificing themselves in Haditha? Just asking.

I agree on waiting for the trial.

To be fair, you presented two facts to support your case, and one of them appears to be critically flawed. It's not sheep-like for people to notice that 50% of your case is already questionable.

no. it was a typo. all the bodies had gunshot wounds of the calibre used by the US military, 5.56 mm, not the 7.62 ammo used by the insurgants.

which is irrelevant, the substantive point has been ignored in to nit pick, a sure sign of a losing argument.

It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.

Though I don't know if that was even in the press. I haven't heard of such specifics- as I will wait for the official report.

I wonder where such "5.52mm" came from....

no. it was a typo. all the bodies had gunshot wounds of the calibre used by the US military, 5.56 mm, not the 7.62 ammo used by the insurgants.

which is irrelevant, the substantive point has been ignored in to nit pick, a sure sign of a losing argument.

Hardly.

You didn't post any evidence in your assertions.

Especially the "baa Mr. President" part.

Show me the evidence that Haditha was ordered by the President.

Hardly.

You didn't post any evidence in your assertions.

Especially the "baa Mr. President" part.

Show me the evidence that Haditha was ordered by the President.

I dont think he was implying that...

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.[/QUOTE


its not, admittedly, how i feed myself, but i know the difference between a fucking roadside bomb and an old man in a wheelchair being shot.

garnering clues? THE MARINES LIED ABOUT A BOMB GOING OFF. thats enough to confine them to barracks right there

I dont think he was implying that...
20 bucks says he believes it with all his heart.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.[/QUOTE


its not, admittedly, how i feed myself, but i know the difference between a fucking roadside bomb and an old man in a wheelchair being shot.

garnering clues? THE MARINES LIED ABOUT A BOMB GOING OFF. thats enough to confine them to barracks right there


You will note in my previous posts that I am not defending or or denying what the particular Marines and their immediate officers did or did not do.

I am, however, denying the implied charge (when you say "baa Mr. President") that somehow the President is involved (or anyone higher in the chain of command than the battalion commander).

20 bucks says he believes it with all his heart.

Cue the guy from scanners who's head explodes.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]It's pretty obvious to me that his level of expertise in garnering clues from a military crime scene is ZERO.

Even if it is spoon-fed to him by the press.[/QUOTE


its not, admittedly, how i feed myself, but i know the difference between a fucking roadside bomb and an old man in a wheelchair being shot.

garnering clues? THE MARINES LIED ABOUT A BOMB GOING OFF. thats enough to confine them to barracks right there

And you're trying to say they aren't? What most are saying is that the "facts" of the case are still being presented and that a court will decide. If they are found to be guilty, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, there have been numerous instances where the initial "facts" presented were not the whole truth.

Now, what about those marines facing a trial by an iraqi court?

Saddam is being judged by one of those (fairly, I must add)

DK, the marines are clearly, by any resonable assesment of the situation, up to their necks in a conspiracy to conceal the truth of 24 innocent deaths.

and you come on here and throw all sorts of guff about to deflect attention etc. you dont need to be military trained to know that they lied, from start to finish.. yet you are defending them.

which means you are
a: lying/propagandising for possibly very noble reasons of loyalty to your military
b: on a wind up or
c: a sheep. baa baa, will do what am told. baa baa.

*edit* im not implying the president ordered the massacre, but im sure if he wanted the truth out he could expidite the process. i refer to the 'honest morons' who are parroting to most blatant bullshit thats trying to deflect from/defend this incident. use your brains boys. seriously

Now, what about those marines facing a trial by an iraqi court?

Saddam is being judged by one of those (fairly, I must add)

There's a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq, much like the agreements we have with other nations (such as Germany, as an example).

The wording of the agreement will determine who tries them. Not some random decision on the spot.

DK, the marines are clearly, by any resonable assesment of the situation, up to their necks in a conspiracy to conceal the truth of 24 innocent deaths.

and you come on here and throw all sorts of guff about to deflect attention etc. you dont need to be military trained to know that they lied, from start to finish.. yet you are defending them.

which means you are
a: lying/propagandising for possibly very noble reasons of loyalty to your military
b: on a wind up or
c: a sheep. baa baa, will do what am told. baa baa.

And who defines "reasonable"? You? Have extremists never staged a massacre for propoganda purposes? Have the military never had individuals cross the line? Do you have all the information in this case? You claim that others are being hypocritical towards the Marines when talking about Gitmo and yet you're condemning them w/o all the facts. Pot meet kettle.

DK, the marines are clearly, by any resonable assesment of the situation, up to their necks in a conspiracy to conceal the truth of 24 innocent deaths.

and you come on here and throw all sorts of guff about to deflect attention etc. you dont need to be military trained to know that they lied, from start to finish.. yet you are defending them.

which means you are
a: lying/propagandising for possibly very noble reasons of loyalty to your military
b: on a wind up or
c: a sheep. baa baa, will do what am told. baa baa.

*edit* im not implying the president ordered the massacre, but im sure if he wanted the truth out he could expidite the process. i refer to the 'honest morons' who are parroting to most blatant bullshit thats trying to deflect from/defend this incident. use your brains boys. seriously


No, it means that I would rather discuss facts with someone who is knowledgeable enough to discuss them.

Not some uneducated farcical substitute who can't tell one military caliber from another - or even know which ones exist or not.

There's a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq, much like the agreements we have with other nations (such as Germany, as an example).

The wording of the agreement will determine who tries them. Not some random decision on the spot.

I forgot to add that I was suggesting an hypothetical situation, but, what then?

After all, it is hypothetical for now that the marines are guilty, right?

And who defines "reasonable"? You? Have extremists never staged a massacre for propoganda purposes? Have the military never had individuals cross the line? Do you have all the information in this case? You claim that others are being hypocritical towards the Marines when talking about Gitmo and yet you're condemning them w/o all the facts. Pot meet kettle.

are you saying this was the work of the iraqi resistance? :rolleyes:

WHY DID THE MARINES LIE ABOUT THE BOMB?

if the marines who were literally caught with blood on their hands get the public support of the US state and its supporters that they are entitled to a trial and th epresumptiopn of innocence, the same decency should be extended to those in gitmo. its not rocket science.

No, it means that I would rather discuss facts with someone who is knowledgeable enough to discuss them.

Not some uneducated farcical substitute who can't tell one military caliber from another - or even know which ones exist or not.

DK, thats the intellectual equivilent of a sulk. pick a typo to take your ball and go home.

childish doesnt even begin to describe it.

baa baa goes further

I forgot to add that I was suggesting an hypothetical situation, but, what then?

After all, it is hypothetical for now that the marines are guilty, right?

Technically, once the investigation is complete (and it's pretty much all there), there will be court martials.

Marines accused of a crime in a combat area probably fall under military jurisdiction.

They have already relieved two battalion commanders permanently (one can expect them to get court martialed as well).

There will be plenty of frying bacon sounds in the near term.

On the other hand, one can expect the wheels and cogs to turn slowly (as they always do). And people like SR will say that the slowness is due to some conspiracy by Cheney or something to that effect.

are you saying this was the work of the iraqi resistance? :rolleyes:

Did I say that? No. What I asked was is it unprecedented for it to happen? Yes or no?

WHY DID THE MARINES LIE ABOUT THE BOMB?

They fucked up. Am I a mindreader? Am I the investigator? Do I pretend to know all the facts fo the case?

if the marines who were literally caught with blood on their hands get the public support of the US state and its supporters that they are entitled to a trial and th epresumptiopn of innocence, the same decency should be extended to those in gitmo. its not rocket science.

Like I said, you're condemning them w/o all the evidence nor a trial while making up statements now. Hypocrisy, meet thine own.

Or are you now admitting they are innocent until proven guilty?

are you saying this was the work of the iraqi resistance? :rolleyes:

WHY DID THE MARINES LIE ABOUT THE BOMB?

if the marines who were literally caught with blood on their hands get the public support of the US state and its supporters that they are entitled to a trial and th epresumptiopn of innocence, the same decency should be extended to those in gitmo. its not rocket science.

I guess you'll overlook the fact that it's being investigated, that officers have already been relieved, and there are court martials planned. You act as though NOTHING was being done.

The people in Guantanamo were ostensibly captured in combat.

People captured in combat are not entitled to a trial or military hearing. They are incarcerated for the duration of the conflict, which in this case may be forever.

Or do you think that during WWII, we should have held a trial for every German and Italian and Japanese soldier captured by the Allies, and sent the majority of them home to be re-inducted into the Axis forces as soon as they arrived?

I've joined this very late.

YES! They deserve the best defense the U.S. has to offer- same as any murder, pedophile, rapist, and terrorist gets (these marines are much more deserving than any of the above for a good attorney.)

It's war. People are killed. War and death are indiscriminate- as Faramir says in Lord of the Rings "War- it will make corpses of us all."

On the other hand, one can expect the wheels and cogs to turn slowly (as they always do). And people like SR will say that the slowness is due to some conspiracy by Cheney or something to that effect.

why do we expect that? its already been 6 1/2 months!!!

they are trying to take the sting out of it and let the worldwide anger die down before repeating the type of justice we saw in abu ghraib where the little people get shat on while the chian of command that ordered it/let discipline break down walk away laughing.

why do we expect that? its already been 6 1/2 months!!!

they are trying to take the sting out of it and let the worldwide anger die down before repeating the type of justice we saw in abu ghraib where the little people get shat on while the chian of command that ordered it/let discipline break down walk away laughing.

Tim Robbins: Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.

Sean Penn: Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

Did I say that? No. What I asked was is it unprecedented for it to happen? Yes or no?

its a total red herring and irrelevant.


They fucked up. Am I a mindreader? Am I the investigator? Do I pretend to know all the facts fo the case?


no, they were trying to cover up nastiness and by sheer luck there were some press in the area who refused to let it go



Like I said, you're condemning them w/o all the evidence nor a trial while making up statements now. Hypocrisy, meet thine own.

Or are you now admitting they are innocent until proven guilty?

the same rules should apply full stop, you cant cherrypick what bits of democracy you apply.

and i think they are of course innocent untill they clearly will be proven guilty, i want you to apply the same logic to your prisoners too

.

Or do you think that during WWII, we should have held a trial for every German and Italian and Japanese soldier captured by the Allies, and sent the majority of them home to be re-inducted into the Axis forces as soon as they arrived?

you, as you and your ilk, keep reminding us, arent at war with them as then they would have GC protection. what is it? are they POW's are arent they? you are trying to have it both ways on this.

you, as you and your ilk, keep reminding us, arent at war with them as then they would have GC protection. what is it? are they POW's are arent they? you are trying to have it both ways on this.

So you're going to say that Bush wrote the Geneva Conventions in the completely screwed-up form they take today, where they are impossible to apply to multinational terrorists?

BTW, you need to change your tinfoil hat - it's getting limp.

Sean Penn: Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.


:D

You have a way with words :D

There are prisoners, and then there are prisoners entitled to the protections of the Conventions.

Shall we read together?


Art. 2.

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I'm afraid that this means that either the parties in conflict have to be High Contracting Parties (i.e., countries that are signatories to the Conventions), or if one of the Parties is not a signatory, then it must declare that it will abide by the Conventions and demonstrate that by doing so.

Failure to fulfill either condition puts the soldiers of that Party in the condition of NOT BEING PROTECTED by the Conventions.

Period.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not, are not, and will not abide by the Conventions, nor are they signatories, nor are they demonstrating that they intend to abide by the Conventions.

Period.

Shall we read it again?

So you're going to say that Bush wrote the Geneva Conventions in the completely screwed-up form they take today, where they are impossible to apply to multinational terrorists?

BTW, you need to change your tinfoil hat - it's getting limp.

cos you are the only country who has to deal with them, unique to the US?
:rolleyes:

they are either a: terrorists who are dealt with by the civilian courts like the rest of the civilised word

or b: members of a standiong paramilitary force at which point they become POW's.

bet you werent quite so sanguine about the viet cong treating the US military they nabbed in the exact same illegal manner.

cos you are the only country who has to deal with them, unique to the US?
:rolleyes:

they are either a: terrorists who are dealt with by the civilian courts like the rest of the civilised word

or b: members of a standiong paramilitary force at which point they become POW's.

bet you werent quite so sanguine about the viet cong treating the US military they nabbed in the exact same illegal manner.


Go back and read what I posted, direct from the Conventions.

I'm not making any of the arguments you think I'm making.

cos you are the only country who has to deal with them, unique to the US?
:rolleyes:

they are either a: terrorists who are dealt with by the civilian courts like the rest of the civilised word

or b: members of a standiong paramilitary force at which point they become POW's.

bet you werent quite so sanguine about the viet cong treating the US military they nabbed in the exact same illegal manner.


Unlike the VietCong, who were a non-signatory that was working on behalf of a High Contracting Party to the Conventions, and who had publicly announced their intention to follow the Conventions (and thus were subject to its protections), members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban are neither.

Thus, they do not enjoy the protections that come to a High Contracting Party.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not, are not, and will not abide by the Conventions, nor are they signatories, nor are they demonstrating that they intend to abide by the Conventions.

Good point!

Unlike the VietCong, who were a non-signatory that was working on behalf of a High Contracting Party to the Conventions, and who had publicly announced their intention to follow the Conventions (and thus were subject to its protections), members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban are neither.



the taliban, as the recognised govt of afghanistan at the time, are and have been protected by the GC.


Thus, they do not enjoy the protections that come to a High Contracting Party.

then they are criminals and are entitled to a trial.

then they are criminals and are entitled to a trial.

Why do you believe they are entitled to a trial?

the taliban, as the recognised govt of afghanistan at the time, are and have been protected by the GC.

then they are criminals and are entitled to a trial.

No, according to the Geneva Conventions, they aren't entitled to the protections. Part of the reason the Taliban were screwed were policy statements made right before the US invasion by their leader Omar.

Maybe if you read the Geneva Conventions, instead of imagining and wishing what they said, you would know who gets protected by the Conventions.

Why do you believe they are entitled to a trial?

you are taking the piss?

if they are terrorists, they are criminals who should be treated as such

because you cannot hold people indefinitly without charge or trial. especially when huge amounts of the evidence used to arrest/kidnap them has been called into question.

and because the US is supposed to be a democracy based on the rule of law?

No, according to the Geneva Conventions, they aren't entitled to the protections. Part of the reason the Taliban were screwed were policy statements made right before the US invasion by their leader Omar.

Maybe if you read the Geneva Conventions, instead of imagining and wishing what they said, you would know who gets protected by the Conventions.

the taliban were the army of afghanistan. they have been given POW status when captured in afghanistan.

anyway, what has all of this got to do with murdering marines getting defended by over patriotic baa baa americans

you are taking the piss?

if they are terrorists, they are criminals who should be treated as such

because you cannot hold people indefinitly without charge or trial. especially when huge amounts of the evidence used to arrest/kidnap them has been called into question.

and because the US is supposed to be a democracy based on the rule of law?

You can hold prisoners taken in combat indefinitely.

However, if the prisoners in question are not members of a High Contracting Party, they can be fucked with at will, because they are not subject to the protections of the Convention (protections that only apply to High Contracting Parties, or parties who publicly announce their intention to follow the Conventions).

the taliban were the army of afghanistan. they have been given POW status when captured in afghanistan.

anyway, what has all of this got to do with murdering marines getting defended by over patriotic baa baa americans

You brought up Gitmo, as I recall. You're the one who led down this path to get yourself beat up by the exact wording of the Conventions.

because you cannot hold people indefinitly without charge or trial. especially when huge amounts of the evidence used to arrest/kidnap them has been called into question.

I know this is the idealistic view, but it isn't political reality. As DK pointed out, the Geneva conventions, as with virtually all intnl law, only apply to signatories and those who willingly choose to comply. Terrorists, in general, fit neither criteria. Thus, they have no legal right to trial in this case.

and because the US is supposed to be a democracy based on the rule of law?

It would seem that you're the one that has a problem with the Rule of Law. DK explained the law in this situation quite lucidly. You seem to be going off your own morality or idealism rather than the Rule of Law.

You can hold prisoners taken in combat indefinitely.

However, if the prisoners in question are not members of a High Contracting Party, they can be fucked with at will, because they are not subject to the protections of the Convention (protections that only apply to High Contracting Parties, or parties who publicly announce their intention to follow the Conventions).

then its not classed as combat, as very few of those in gitmo were caught armed or in action. therefore its a conspiracy/terrorism CRIMINAL issue.

the drug dealer down the road isnt a High Contracting Party, and the US state declared war on drugs, so can he be locked up indefinitly with no evidence presented and no access to lawyers and possibly tortured?

I know this is the idealistic view, but it isn't political reality. As DK pointed out, the Geneva conventions, as with virtually all intnl law, only apply to signatories and those who willingly choose to comply. Terrorists, in general, fit neither criteria. Thus, they have no legal right to trial in this case.



It would seem that you're the one that has a problem with the Rule of Law. DK explained the law in this situation quite lucidly. You seem to be going off your own morality or idealism rather than the Rule of Law.

no im not, if they arent military they are by definition terrorists. ie criminals.

why does no other western state tackle terrorism like this? not even israel?

the drug dealer down the road isnt a High Contracting Party, and the US state declared war on drugs, so can he be locked up indefinitly with no evidence presented and no access to lawyers and possibly tortured?

You're confusing state civil law with international law. Drug dealers in the US, if they are citizens, are protected by various rights they have under civil laws as citizens. Foreign terrorists are a bit different.

no im not, if they arent military they are by definition terrorists. ie criminals.

why does no other western state tackle terrorism like this? not even israel?

Actually in Israel they do 'snap trials.' Militants are simply hunted down and killed.

then its not classed as combat, as very few of those in gitmo were caught armed or in action. therefore its a conspiracy/terrorism CRIMINAL issue.

the drug dealer down the road isnt a High Contracting Party, and the US state declared war on drugs, so can he be locked up indefinitly with no evidence presented and no access to lawyers and possibly tortured?

The last one, theoretically yes. If detained by military forces. If he's detained by DEA agents, he gets a trial.

Most of the people detained in Guantanamo have already been released. The ones that remain are either those who have had their military tribunal, and it has been determined that they are just going to go back out and kill some more, or it has been determined that some are truly harmless, but no country will take them - not even their home country.

You're confusing state civil law with international law. Drug dealers in the US, if they are citizens, are protected by various rights they have under civil laws as citizens. Foreign terrorists are a bit different.

are they?

it sounds like cherry picking to me. a war against an abstract criminal context is a war against an abstract criminal context. the law is the law, and gitmo is against the law.

you arrest them and treat them as POW's, legally iffy, or arrest them and treat them as criminals, which the US would have done a few years ago and the rest of the world still does.

Although, I should clarify a bit. In Israel, terrorists are often held for long periods of time without being charged. They aren't held indefinately. Nor can it be said that US prisoners in Gitmo are held indefinately. Both are held as long as it takes to investigate their circumstances. If they are found to be innocent, they are released. If they are found to be involved in criminal activity, they are charged. Thus, there is nothing indefinate about it. The time period = as long as it takes to investigate properly. It isn't specific, but it isn't indefinate because it outlines a time frame.

The last one, theoretically yes. If detained by military forces. If he's detained by DEA agents, he gets a trial.


and what happens if they are detained by the northern alliance? bounty hunters? the CIA?
what happens if they are children?

are they?

it sounds like cherry picking to me. a war against an abstract criminal context is a war against an abstract criminal context. the law is the law, and gitmo is against the law.

you arrest them and treat them as POW's, legally iffy, or arrest them and treat them as criminals, which the US would have done a few years ago and the rest of the world still does.

No, you're under the illusion that the Conventions are complete and cover each situation clearly.

They are not complete, and do not cover each situation clearly.

We aren't "arresting" terrorists.

We aren't "arresting" terrorists.

so they vaporised out of thin air in gitmo?

pull the other one

and what happens if they are detained by the northern alliance? bounty hunters? the CIA?
If handed over to the military or CIA, then they are not criminals. They are prisoners, but not subject to the protections of the Conventions.

You'll notice they get a military tribunal and a lawyer, contrary to your statement that they have no lawyer or hearing.

Most of the people sent to Guantanamo have been released already. I guess you missed that part.

are they?

Why yes, they sure are.

it sounds like cherry picking to me. a war against an abstract criminal context is a war against an abstract criminal context. the law is the law, and gitmo is against the law.

There isn't a war against an abstract criminal context. Nor is "the law the law." International law is quite flexible, and is quite different from state civil law.

you arrest them and treat them as POW's, legally iffy, or arrest them and treat them as criminals, which the US would have done a few years ago and the rest of the world still does.

They aren't criminals due to state civil law, nor are they being held or charged as criminals. In either case, they are not entitled to due process and other rights that citizens are granted under US state civil law. International law does not grant them the same rights that US citizens are granted by state civil law, just like the law in Saudi Arabia doesn't grant them the same rights that the law grants them in the United States. They are different systems of law, with different rights granted.

And, it would seem that a lot aren't POW's, since they aren't official extentions of a state. Non-political entities don't get POW status, because they never had the political right to 'wage war' to begin with. It would be like arresting pirates in Southeast Asia, who violate international maritime law, and giving them POW status.

And, it would seem that a lot aren't POW's, since they aren't official extentions of a state. Non-political entities don't get POW status, because they never had the political right to 'wage war' to begin with. It would be like arresting pirates in Southeast Asia, who violate international maritime law, and giving them POW status.

correct, you have finally come round to my point of view.

treat criminals as criminals. terrorism is a criminal offence in the US. therefore terrorists are criminals. simple really

correct, you have finally come round to my point of view.

treat criminals as criminals. terrorism is a criminal offence in the US. therefore terrorists are criminals. simple really
Then we can treat them as we do mercenaries.

Mercenaries are criminals, and are not protected by the Conventions.

They can be shot out of hand when captured.

correct, you have finally come round to my point of view.

treat criminals as criminals. terrorism is a criminal offence in the US. therefore terrorists are criminals. simple really

They aren't US citizens, and they didn't commit terrorism on US soil however. This is why they don't have the same rights as US citizens and aren't subject to the same civil law that US citizens are.

its a total red herring and irrelevant.

No it isn't, especially when you ignored the question after that and refuse to answer either.



no, they were trying to cover up nastiness and by sheer luck there were some press in the area who refused to let it go

So you know all the facts? are a mindreader or the investigator?





the same rules should apply full stop, you cant cherrypick what bits of democracy you apply.

and i think they are of course innocent untill they clearly will be proven guilty, i want you to apply the same logic to your prisoners too

And yet as DK has shown, they are separate situations under the Geneva Conventions and US law. Who exactly are "my prisoners"? Am I holding people hostage?

I like how you assume they will be proven guilty. Hypocrit.



you, as you and your ilk, keep reminding us, arent at war with them as then they would have GC protection. what is it? are they POW's are arent they? you are trying to have it both ways on this.

Me and my "ilk"? What exactly is that? Have I defended Gitmo? Show me where? Or are you just making assumptions as fact again?

So, marines were just firing at walls and windows?


You tell me .

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 11, 2006; A01



A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

Wuterich's detailed version of what happened in the Haditha neighborhood is the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred. As the leader of 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Wuterich was in the convoy of Humvees that was hit by a roadside bomb. He entered the house from which the Marines believed enemy fire was originating and made the initial radio reports to his company headquarters about what was going on, Puckett said.

The reports that Marines wantonly shot unarmed civilians in Haditha, including women and children, allege one of the most shocking, and potentially damaging, incidents of the Iraq war. A criminal investigation looking into possible charges of murder against half a dozen Marines is underway. A separate probe is examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings, and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths.

Three Marine officers have been relieved of command. In the absence of a public response from Marine Corps officials -- who are declining to comment to preserve the integrity of the investigation -- reports of what happened in the western Iraqi town have been leaking out piecemeal from the Haditha neighborhood and in Washington.

Wuterich's version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.

Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the Kilo Company commander, said Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by "a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as a result of grenades" after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

McConnell was relieved of his command in April for "failure to investigate," according to McDermott. But the lawyer said McConnell told him that he reported the high number of civilian deaths to the 3rd Battalion executive officer that afternoon and that within a few days the battalion's intelligence chief gave a PowerPoint presentation to Marine commanders.

"It wasn't a situation that dawned on him as the captain of Kilo where it was like, 'Okay, guys, we need to conduct a more thorough investigation,' " McDermott said. "Everywhere up the chain, they had ample access to this thing."

Gary Myers, a civilian attorney for a Marine who was with Wuterich that day, said the Marines followed standard operating procedures when they "cleared" the houses, using fragmentation grenades and gunshots to respond to an immediate threat.

"I can confirm that that version of events is consistent with our position on this case," Myers said. "What this case comes down to is: What were the rules of engagement, and were they followed?"

The defense attorneys said the rules of engagement -- which vary depending on the mission, level of danger and other factors -- are likely to become a central element of their cases because those rules guide how troops can use deadly force on the battlefield. One Marine official said such rules usually require positive identification of a target before shooting but noted that the rules are often circumstantial.

"Once you go back over it, you have to determine if they applied the rules," the Marine official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Marine Corps does not discuss rules of engagement. "Did they feel threatened? Did they perceive hostile intent or hostile action?"

On Nov. 19, Wuterich's squad left its headquarters at Firm Base Sparta in Haditha at 7 a.m. on a daily mission to drop off Iraqi army troops at a nearby checkpoint. "It was like any other day, we just had to watch out for IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and any other activity that looked suspicious," said Marine Cpl. James Crossan, 21, in an interview from his home in North Bend, Wash. He was riding in the four-Humvee convoy as it turned left onto Chestnut Road, heading west at 7:15 a.m.

Shortly after the turn, a bomb buried in the road ripped through the last Humvee. The blast instantly killed the driver, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20. Crossan, who was in the front passenger seat, remembered hearing someone yell, "Get some morphine." Then he passed out.

Wuterich, driving the third Humvee in the line, immediately stopped the convoy and got out, Puckett said.

Puckett said that while Wuterich was evaluating the scene, Marines noticed a white, unmarked car full of "military-aged men" lingering near the bomb site. When Marines ordered the men to stop, they ran; Puckett said it was standard procedure at the time for the Marines to shoot suspicious people fleeing a bombing, and the Marines opened fire, killing four or five men.

"The first thing he thought was it could be a vehicle-borne bomb or these guys could be ready to do a drive-by shooting," Puckett said, explaining that the Marines were on alert for such coordinated, multi-stage attacks.

Iraqis in the Haditha neighborhood interviewed in recent weeks said the vehicle was a taxi carrying a group of students to their homes and that the driver tried to back away from the site, fleeing in fear. One account said that the Marines shot the men while they were still in the car.

Wuterich officially reported to his headquarters that there had been a makeshift bomb and called for a Quick Reaction Force, Puckett said. The first group encountered an unexploded bomb on another route -- fueling concerns that insurgents were mounting an attack on the daily morning convoy -- and a second force headed out. That group, including Marines with the 3rd Squad and the platoon's leader, a young second lieutenant, arrived minutes later.

Wuterich told Puckett that no one was emotionally rattled by Terrazas's death because everyone had a job to do, and everyone was concerned about further casualties. As Wuterich began briefing the platoon leader, Puckett said, AK-47 shots rang out from residences on the south side of the road, and the Marines ducked.

A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house, and after a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich's account.

"There's a threat, and they went to eliminate the threat," Puckett said.

A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.

The Marine who fired the rounds -- Puckett said it was not Wuterich -- had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed.

Neighborhood residents have offered a different account, saying that the Marines went into the houses shooting and ignored pleas from the civilians to spare them.

Marine Reserve Lt. Jonathan Morgenstein, who served in Anbar province from August 2004 to March 2005, said that the account offered by Wuterich's attorney surprised him a bit.

"When I was in Iraq," Morgenstein said, "the Anbar-wide ROEs [rules of engagement] did not say we had the authority to knock down any door, throw in a hand grenade and kill everyone." Still, he said, if someone in a house in Haditha was shooting at them, the Marines' response may have been within procedure. "If they felt they took fire from that house, then that may be authorized."

A Marine who served near Haditha in November said it was not unusual for Marines to respond to attacks "running and gunning" and that it was standard practice to spray rooms with gunfire when threatened. "It may be a bad tactic, but it works," he said. "It keeps you alive."

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

Marine Corps public affairs officers reported that the civilians had been killed in the bomb blast, a report that Puckett believes was the result of a miscommunication.

After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.

They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.

When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.

The unit stayed at the scene for hours, helping to collect bodies as photos were taken. Wuterich, who remains on duty in California, where he lives with his wife and two young daughters, told Puckett that for months no one questioned his actions.

Staff writers Steve Fainaru in San Diego and Thomas E. Ricks in Washington, and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


sounds far from a cold blooded masacre.

well if the guys facing the firing squad saw they didnt do it.... :rolleyes:

three seperate investegations:

1: did the marines deliberatly kill 24 innocents? seems to be a huge divergence of opinion. eveidence at hand seems to suggest a kernel of truth to this claim, but its all been leaks so far.

2: did they lie about a second bomb and cover up the incident? seems to be a no brainer, they clearly did. which presumably relates to a. why lie of you followed procedures

and 3: did the military authorities fail to react quickly enough? totally subjective.

well if the guys facing the firing squad saw they didnt do it.... :rolleyes:

three seperate investegations:

1: did the marines deliberatly kill 24 innocents? seems to be a huge divergence of opinion. eveidence at hand seems to suggest a kernel of truth to this claim, but its all been leaks so far.

2: did they lie about a second bomb and cover up the incident? seems to be a no brainer, they clearly did. which presumably relates to a. why lie of you followed procedures

and 3: did the military authorities fail to react quickly enough? totally subjective.

Instead of speculating wildly out of your rectal orifice, why don't you wait until we actually find out what happened from as many people as possible who were there first hand.

And stop speculating on just who is lying before you get all the facts.

A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.


The sergeant said.

His attorney said.

He's not going to blame himself, no?

I rest my case, for now.

well if the guys facing the firing squad saw they didnt do it.... :rolleyes:

three seperate investegations:

1: did the marines deliberatly kill 24 innocents? seems to be a huge divergence of opinion. eveidence at hand seems to suggest a kernel of truth to this claim, but its all been leaks so far.

2: did they lie about a second bomb and cover up the incident? seems to be a no brainer, they clearly did. which presumably relates to a. why lie of you followed procedures

and 3: did the military authorities fail to react quickly enough? totally subjective.
What an interesting change from the "we all know what really happened at Haditha" stance you took in the beginning of the thread. You seemed to have backed down quite a bit.

1: did the marines deliberatly kill 24 innocents? Don't know yet... and we won't know until the investigation and trial are over.

3: did the military authorities faili to react quickly enough? I completely agree with you that it's subjective.

Now for #2. Did they lie about a second bomb and cover up the incident? The answer is the same for question 1. We don't know.

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have never been in a military and have never been in a combat situation. You have no idea what communications are like, how mis-communication is the rule rather than the exception. You have no idea that 5 people, involved in a stressful situation will have 5 different accounts of what happened.

Me thinks you judge too quickly.

Instead of speculating wildly out of your rectal orifice, why don't you wait until we actually find out what happened from as many people as possible who were there first hand.

And stop speculating on just who is lying before you get all the facts.


ehhhh, you posted the article and closed it with "sounds far from a cold blooded masacre.".....

you stop speculating about how its clearly all a misunderstanding and the super soldiers of the us military are all wonderfully controlled human beings and it must all be arab lies and ill stop speculating on the facts available at the moment.

What an interesting change from the "we all know what really happened at Haditha" stance you took in the beginning of the thread. You seemed to have backed down quite a bit.

1: did the marines deliberatly kill 24 innocents? Don't know yet... and we won't know until the investigation and trial are over.

3: did the military authorities faili to react quickly enough? I completely agree with you that it's subjective.

Now for #2. Did they lie about a second bomb and cover up the incident? The
answer is the same for question 1. We don't know.

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have never been in a military and have never been in a combat situation. You have no idea what communications are like, how mis-communication is the rule rather than the exception. You have no idea that 5 people, involved in a stressful situation will have 5 different accounts of what happened.

Me thinks you judge too quickly.


they killed 24 people one way or the other and lied about it. and people defend them blindly and some even go so far as claim it was iraqi insurgents killing their own.

thats my problem

its the mentality that denys the holocaust happened.

they killed 24 people one way or the other and lied about it. and people defend them blindly and some even go so far as claim it was iraqi insurgents killing their own.

thats my problem

its the mentality that denys the holocaust happened.

Now you're blatantly lying.

That they may have killed 24 people is under investigation. You assume they lied about it.

Noone has claimed it was Iraqi insurgents. I asked if it was unprecedented for extremists along w/ several other questions you have so far refused to answer.

Now you're trying to compare fact finding to Holocaust denial. You truly are pathetic.

Now you're blatantly lying.

That they may have killed 24 people is under investigation. You assume they lied about it.

Noone has claimed it was Iraqi insurgents. I asked if it was unprecedented for extremists along w/ several other questions you have so far refused to answer.

Now you're trying to compare fact finding to Holocaust denial. You truly are pathetic.


your logic isnt working. you say it might not have been the marines while asking is it impossible that it was the insurgents and then claim you arent trying to suggest it might have been them.

this whole thing stinks and while blind patriots (facists?) refuse to ever criticise their military even when the evidence is stacking up, it becomes farcical.

if your opinion is that it couldnt have happened because it is the marines, you are the type of german who refused to believe that auschwitz was anything other than a labour camp. ie a sheep

your logic isnt working. you say it might not have been the marines while asking is it impossible that it was the insurgents and then claim you arent trying to suggest it might have been them.

this whole thing stinks and while blind patriots (facists?) refuse to ever criticise their military even when the evidence is stacking up, it becomes farcical.

if your opinion is that it couldnt have happened because it is the marines, you are the type of german who refused to believe that auschwitz was anything other than a labour camp. ie a sheep

It's entirely possible, for instance, that the civilians were caught in the crossfire of house to house fighting.

Standard doctrine for house to house fighting, for instance, requires the soldier to throw a fragmentation grenade into a room before entering it, to ensure a friendly greeting.

If you're clearing a house from which you've just received fire (and the insurgent then runs out the back door), you're going to throw a grenade in the door before you go in (because you don't know if he's still in there).

Tell me, how are we supposed to fight insurgents in a built-up area if we don't follow the tactics that have been standard in every military since WW II?

It's entirely possible, for instance, that the civilians were caught in the crossfire of house to house fighting.

Standard doctrine for house to house fighting, for instance, requires the soldier to throw a fragmentation grenade into a room before entering it, to ensure a friendly greeting.


i agree.

but its also entirely possible that a rabble of ill discipled marines murdered 24 civilians mai lai style in revenge for the killing of one of their squad, executing a man in a wheelchair and putting kids in a wardrobe and shooting them at close range?

and anyone who automatically assumes one of those scenarios is impossible is dangerous

i agree.

but its also entirely possible that a rabble of ill discipled marines murdered 24 civilians mai lai style in revenge for the killing of one of their squad, executing a man in a wheelchair and putting kids in a wardrobe and shooting them at close range?

and anyone who automatically assumes one of those scenarios is impossible is dangerous

You, on the other hand, automatically assume it's the shooting of women and children by bloodthirsty savages.

And anyone who you think contradicts you is impossible and dangerous.

your logic isnt working. you say it might not have been the marines while asking is it impossible that it was the insurgents and then claim you arent trying to suggest it might have been them.

So it's gone from I "said" it to I suggested it? Care to dodge any more?

So you are denying that "insurgents" have used such tactics in the past? WHy do you keep ignoring the other questions that were in the same posting? You know, the ones about the US military?

this whole thing stinks and while blind patriots (facists?) refuse to ever criticise their military even when the evidence is stacking up, it becomes farcical.

More personal attacks. How quaint. What evidence is "stacking up"? Why don't you post it?

if your opinion is that it couldnt have happened because it is the marines, you are the type of german who refused to believe that auschwitz was anything other than a labour camp. ie a sheep

Now talking about the red herrings. Did I say it couldn't have been the Marines? No. Am I condemning them before all the facts (like you are)? No.

Keep up the lying.

You, on the other hand, automatically assume it's the shooting of women and children by bloodthirsty savages.

And anyone who you think contradicts you is impossible and dangerous.

you are being a dick.

i said i agree its possible that it was a crossfire but because you are acting like a spoilt child you chose to ignore that.

you are being a dick.

i said i agree its possible that it was a crossfire but because you are acting like a spoilt child you chose to ignore that.

And you are being a hypocrit by making such statements as "a rabble of ill discipled marines murdered 24 civilians mai lai style in revenge for the killing of one of their squad, executing a man in a wheelchair and putting kids in a wardrobe and shooting them at close range"

and then going on to say" you agree it's possible they didn't.

And you are being a hypocrit by making such statements as "a rabble of ill discipled marines murdered 24 civilians mai lai style in revenge for the killing of one of their squad, executing a man in a wheelchair and putting kids in a wardrobe and shooting them at close range"

and then going on to say" you agree it's possible they didn't.

you must be inbred or something.

DK said it was possible the marines did nothing wrong.

i agreed but countered it was also possible they did evertyhing wrong.

my point being that some here refuse to countenance that the marines were naughty simply because they are marines, and thats dangerous.

you understand the concept of compare and contrast and a circular argument?

you must be inbred or something.

DK said it was possible the marines did nothing wrong.

i agreed but countered it was also possible they did evertyhing wrong.

my point being that some here refuse to countenance that the marines were naughty simply because they are marines, and thats dangerous.

you understand the concept of compare and contrast and a circular argument?

Oh, more personal attacks. What a sound arguement.

You stated it was "entirely possible" and that they HAD lied about it. Not much room for innocence there.

You stated that questioning that the Marines absolutely did it is comparable to denying the Holocaust.

You obviously understand the concept of red herrings and strawmen since you use them so often.

Oh, more personal attacks. What a sound arguement.

You stated it was "entirely possible" and that they HAD lied about it. Not much room for innocence there.

You stated that questioning that the Marines absolutely did it is comparable to denying the Holocaust.

You obviously understand the concept of red herrings and strawmen since you use them so often.

i do think its entirely possible, no, probable, they killed these poor sods and lied about it. but im not absolute and maybe it is all a terrible accident. but i doubt it. and if it is i will of course feel bad for ever doubting them. is that an inreasonable position?

i stated that there are certain people who will not believe the marines did it just because they are US marines, and that comparable to denying the holocaust. absolute certainty based soley on the race of the alledged perpetrators.

people have gone way beyond simply questioning their involvement, and i find that akin to facism.

i do think its entirely possible, no, probable, they killed these poor sods and lied about it. but im not absolute and maybe it is all a terrible accident. but i doubt it. and if it is i will of course feel bad for ever doubting them. is that an inreasonable position?

So you're judging them before all the facts are out. Good, I'm glad you admit it.


i stated that there are certain people who will not believe the marines did it just because they are US marines, and that comparable to denying the holocaust. absolute certainty based soley on the race of the alledged perpetrators.

And you stated that it was me and my "ilk" who were doing so. Do you deny this?

people have gone way beyond simply questioning their involvement, and i find that akin to facism.

Like who?

It's interesting that you do not question their involvement and just take them as most likely guilty and have since the beginning.

"DK, the marines are clearly, by any resonable assesment of the situation, up to their necks in a conspiracy to conceal the truth of 24 innocent deaths."

no, my reading of the situation is they clearly covered up whatever happened in Haijitha.

and i suspect what happened was vengeful foul play, but will happily stand corrected.

by your ilk, i mean people who are attacking posters who interpret this whole incident as monkey business and worried by the unblinking, unwavering defence the marines are getting. not just they didnt do it, they couldnt do it.

and thats the same thing as the 90 year old german who believes his coountrymen could never have done it. the germans are better than that etc.

I take it this thread is aimed at me?

I say let the JAG work. IF they ARE guilty, and they may or may not be, then they will lose their heads over this.

Until then, they are Marines.
I get a feeling from you that you seem to know that they're innocent.

You seem to have a fetish for the US military because God is on their side.

no, my reading of the situation is they clearly covered up whatever happened in Haijitha.

and i suspect what happened was vengeful foul play, but will happily stand corrected.

by your ilk, i mean people who are attacking posters who interpret this whole incident as monkey business and worried by the unblinking, unwavering defence the marines are getting. not just they didnt do it, they couldnt do it.

and thats the same thing as the 90 year old german who believes his coountrymen could never have done it. the germans are better than that etc.

So you're now stating that I don't believe the Marines could never have done it? That I questioned your unwavering attack on their guilt before all the facts = holocaust denier?

I would love for you to prove that one.

I heard many discussions between officers who openly spoke of sedition when Clinton took office - right after he took office - because of his very hostility to the military.
That's poor discipline if ever I heard of it. Not getting to wear your uniform in the White House is not worth fighting your government over. I'm guessing these soldiers were Republican voters, bitter that Bush 1 lost. You report this as if it's something to be proud of.

That I questioned your unwavering attack on their guilt before all the facts.


ehhhh, what? :confused:

surely i attacked their innocence?

see what i mean, pointless. you dont even know the difference between guilt and innocence in these matters :cool:

ehhhh, what? :confused:

surely i attacked their innocence?

see what i mean, pointless. you dont even know the difference between guilt and innocence in these matters :cool:

OHHH, you caught a slip of the tongue. You're the coolest thing since, well, nobody, really.:rolleyes:

I get a feeling from you that you seem to know that they're innocent.

You seem to have a fetish for the US military because God is on their side.

I'd just say he just likes big manly men in uniform. Nothing wrong with it, if you can get it, I suppose.

Seeing the evidence, the inconsistencies of the witness reports, and other stuff like that, I have to conclude that the mirines were innocent. For example: The stopped and allegedly killed the people in some of the houses next to where the bomb exploded. But, now they went all the up the street from where the bomb was gone and allegedly killed the next family(s). Wouldn't it have made more sense just to kill the people in the houses next to them if they are just going to kill random people?

I get a feeling from you that you seem to know that they're innocent.

You seem to have a fetish for the US military because God is on their side.

I beleive they are innocent until proven guilty. Until that point, they are still honorable marines.

God is on our side, yes I know that.

I'd just say he just likes big manly men in uniform. Nothing wrong with it, if you can get it, I suppose.

My old man was Army
My buddy IS army
My brother was Army/ROTC
My grandad was USAF
My uncle was USN
My Grandad was USMC
I will be USMC.


Google "Operation take one for the country"

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.

interesting way to approach the situation,the way you worded it.

i support the marines until proven guilty,and i may sound callous,but if they went off the reservation so to speak,i still support them..put youself in their shoes.

interesting way to approach the situation,the way you worded it.

i support the marines until proven guilty,and i may sound callous,but if they went off the reservation so to speak,i still support them..put youself in their shoes.

My words exactly, you will be accused of supporting genocide and whatnot from some of the leftists on here. Copy my sigline if you want since it seems to state what you said perfectly. Get a chain going here...

interesting way to approach the situation,the way you worded it.

i support the marines until proven guilty,and i may sound callous,but if they went off the reservation so to speak,i still support them..put youself in their shoes.

Allow me to be blunt. As a retired line officer I will support these Marines through the process. They deserve an impartial and fair investigation into their activities in Haditha.

If they went off the reservation, they are in violation of the law, including military rules and regulations, and applicable rules of engagement. I have sympathy for them, but I will not accept "snapping" as an excuse for murdering civilians, including women and children. If I were the convening authority (and I have been in the past), I would want to see to it that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law.

It certainly looks like these young Marines unfortunately committed grave crimes. No amount of respect for the military is a valid excuse for supporting the actions that are alleged of these young men. Indeed, if an investigation determines the crimes were committed, it is clear they will face Special and General Courts Martial and be judged for those actions.

There is nothing heroic about cold-blooded murder. That's not liberal gentlemen, that's common sense.

Again Schwarzchild owns a thread...

Totally agree to every word.

Allow me to be blunt. As a retired line officer I will support these Marines through the process. They deserve an impartial and fair investigation into their activities in Haditha.

If they went off the reservation, they are in violation of the law, including military rules and regulations, and applicable rules of engagement. I have sympathy for them, but I will not accept "snapping" as an excuse for murdering civilians, including women and children. If I were the convening authority (and I have been in the past), I would want to see to it that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law.

It certainly looks like these young Marines unfortunately committed grave crimes. No amount of respect for the military is a valid excuse for supporting the actions that are alleged of these young men. Indeed, if an investigation determines the crimes were committed, it is clear they will face Special and General Courts Martial and be judged for those actions.

There is nothing heroic about cold-blooded murder. That's not liberal gentlemen, that's common sense.

I agree with this totally.

I get a feeling from you that you seem to know that they're innocent.

You seem to have a fetish for the US military because God is on their side.

Well, you can't seriously support folks who DON'T have God on their side.

I beleive they are innocent until proven guilty. Until that point, they are still honorable marines.
If you believe in the priciple of "innocent until proven guilty", please apply is to all, not just US military personnel.

God is on our side, yes I know that.
Is God a Republican as well?

Well I guess you know better than the majority of Christians and the Pope, right?


I will be USMC.

Strange that a self-proclaimed small government advocate wants to be a government employee.

Allow me to be blunt. As a retired line officer I will support these Marines through the process. They deserve an impartial and fair investigation into their activities in Haditha.

If they went off the reservation, they are in violation of the law, including military rules and regulations, and applicable rules of engagement. I have sympathy for them, but I will not accept "snapping" as an excuse for murdering civilians, including women and children. If I were the convening authority (and I have been in the past), I would want to see to it that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law.

It certainly looks like these young Marines unfortunately committed grave crimes. No amount of respect for the military is a valid excuse for supporting the actions that are alleged of these young men. Indeed, if an investigation determines the crimes were committed, it is clear they will face Special and General Courts Martial and be judged for those actions.

There is nothing heroic about cold-blooded murder. That's not liberal gentlemen, that's common sense.

common sense and restores my faith in former US military like DK and (heaven help us) soon to be like DM.

saying you will still support them even if the worst case scenario war crime was committed is akin to facism.

I just read that because of this americans going to iraq will now be taking "ethics classes"...Though it's anyones guess what Bush can teach them about "ethics".

Maybe we'll be getting some bizarre stories from Iraqi civilians, such as Americans saying "Excuse me while I rape you".

common sense and restores my faith in former US military like DK and (heaven help us) soon to be like DM.

saying you will still support them even if the worst case scenario war crime was committed is akin to facism.

No, it's immature, unrealistic and unprofessional.

I will venture an educated guess, but the DM of today will not be the DM of tomorrow. It is a completely different world once it is not theoretical. Actions have consequences, and I assure you that once you have taken a life or given orders that take lives you gain a much keener respect for life.

I never want to practice my profession again. I yearn for it not to be necessary. But the world is filled with people who hold positions of authority who have no understanding of the sheer savagery of war. To them, it's a cute little game.

That scares the bejabbers out of me.

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.

Does anyone here actually defend the Jewish settlers who killed a two-year-old Palestinian girl in 2000?

Does anyone here actually defend the Israeli soldiers that killed 17 Palestinians in 1990?

Does anyone here actually defend Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish settler who murdered 29 Muslims while they were worshiping at a mosque in 1994?

I'm sure a lot of people here do. You get retards everywhere.

No, it's immature, unrealistic and unprofessional.

I will venture an educated guess, but the DM of today will not be the DM of tomorrow. It is a completely different world once it is not theoretical. Actions have consequences, and I assure you that once you have taken a life or given orders that take lives you gain a much keener respect for life.

I never want to practice my profession again. I yearn for it not to be necessary. But the world is filled with people who hold positions of authority who have no understanding of the sheer savagery of war. To them, it's a cute little game.

That scares the bejabbers out of me.

With DM, i would agree, i think a few nights on the side of a mountain shitting in his own fatigues might concentrate his mind to the realities of modern soldiering.

but there are others on this site whose militaristic rhetoric is borderline US 'uber alles'. blaming the victims, defending troops even if they commit war crimes, the blatant refusal to grant non-us citizens the same legal rights as citizens. defending torture so long as its not done to US citizens (note not US residents) while willing to go to war if any state threatens US interests in any way. at best its keyboard jingoism, at worst its blatant facism.

...I just know a lot of people are going to radically change their opinion of me for this...

Okay, so we have an incident where quite a few civilians died in cold blood. Marines allegedly were at fault here. It has, however, not yet been proven in a court of law. So why are we villifying them? For all we know, they could be completely innocent! There could be a completely different explanation for what happened. Do I personally believe that? No. But I will defend them until they are proven guilty. I don't incriminate people on account of what has been alleged, and those that do need to try actually examining the facts for once.
I'm a late entry into this discussion, but here's my two cents worth, anyway. I don't think these folks, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman, have even been charged with any offense. Certainly they should not be held in the brig until they have been charged. Should they? Plus, this echos of the whole Pantano thing, where a lieutenant was tried, convicted, and sentenced by the press before setting foot into a Court Martial.

These Marines might be guilty, or they might not. Why do we need to beat them, without mercy, before we know?

Allow me to be blunt. As a retired line officer I will support these Marines through the process. They deserve an impartial and fair investigation into their activities in Haditha.

If they went off the reservation, they are in violation of the law, including military rules and regulations, and applicable rules of engagement. I have sympathy for them, but I will not accept "snapping" as an excuse for murdering civilians, including women and children. If I were the convening authority (and I have been in the past), I would want to see to it that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law.

It certainly looks like these young Marines unfortunately committed grave crimes. No amount of respect for the military is a valid excuse for supporting the actions that are alleged of these young men. Indeed, if an investigation determines the crimes were committed, it is clear they will face Special and General Courts Martial and be judged for those actions.

There is nothing heroic about cold-blooded murder. That's not liberal gentlemen, that's common sense.

Will they get the same treatment as someone charged with shooting a bunch of people in Texas?

Allow me to be blunt. As a retired line officer I will support these Marines through the process. They deserve an impartial and fair investigation into their activities in Haditha.

If they went off the reservation, they are in violation of the law, including military rules and regulations, and applicable rules of engagement. I have sympathy for them, but I will not accept "snapping" as an excuse for murdering civilians, including women and children. If I were the convening authority (and I have been in the past), I would want to see to it that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law.

It certainly looks like these young Marines unfortunately committed grave crimes. No amount of respect for the military is a valid excuse for supporting the actions that are alleged of these young men. Indeed, if an investigation determines the crimes were committed, it is clear they will face Special and General Courts Martial and be judged for those actions.

There is nothing heroic about cold-blooded murder. That's not liberal gentlemen, that's common sense.


How do you feel about the Marines and Navy corpman being held in solitary in chains while AWAITING charges and not having being Convicted of anything ? This involves the case where accusations of an excecution and a coverup were made by the Iraqi's....What happened to due proccess and the presumption of innocence ?

We have libs and leftwingers screaming bloody murder about the terrorist and " suspected " terrorist being held in GTMO....why are they not screaming in defence of these people ? Being held in CAMP PEDELTON in the US .

I'm a late entry into this discussion, but here's my two cents worth, anyway. I don't think these folks, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman, have even been charged with any offense. Certainly they should not be held in the brig until they have been charged. Should they? Plus, this echos of the whole Pantano thing, where a lieutenant was tried, convicted, and sentenced by the press before setting foot into a Court Martial.

These Marines might be guilty, or they might not. Why do we need to beat them, without mercy, before we know?


This is a different case . Not Hadjita .

How do you feel about the Marines and Navy corpman being held in solitary in chains....

They're in chains?

Really?

We have libs and leftwingers screaming bloody murder about the terrorist and " suspected " terrorist being held in GTMO....why are they not screaming in defence of these people ? Being held in CAMP PEDELTON in the US .

Thats a valid point you raise. Just goes to show the double standard and that the agenda isn't about equal rights.

For those who insist on "innocent until proven guilty" being applied to these Marines: would you extend the same right to, say, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

We have libs and leftwingers screaming bloody murder about the terrorist and " suspected " terrorist being held in GTMO....why are they not screaming in defence of these people ? Being held in CAMP PEDELTON in the US .
Except that these Marines have a legal status, are not being held indefinitely, and are sure to actually get a trial.

Thats a valid point you raise. Just goes to show the double standard and that the agenda isn't about equal rights.
It is about equal rights, though I would admit that there are some who just oppose the US government at any cost.

Except that these Marines have a legal status, are not being held indefinitely, and are sure to actually get a trial.

Point is they are not up on charges. That's the point :rolleyes:

Point is they are not up on charges. That's the point :rolleyes:
How does it feel when your side gets a taste of injustice?

For those who insist on "innocent until proven guilty" being applied to these Marines: would you extend the same right to, say, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

I dunno, was Zarqawi a US citizen and on US soil to be guaranteed the same rights as US citizens? Non-citizens don't get the same rights.

And, was he considered "armed and dangerous?" If thats the case, even according to US law he can be killed rather than captured.

Or was he ever tried in absentia and found guilty?

There are so many reasons comparing Zarqawi to US citizens is a fallacious analogy...

Bring our troops home...to face war-crimes charges!


YOU ASSHOLE I HAVE A COUSIN IN IRAQ. YOU KNOW NOTHING....PIECE OF SHIT!!!!

For those who insist on "innocent until proven guilty" being applied to these Marines: would you extend the same right to, say, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?


how many video's was the man in taking responsibility for his actions....huh huh ....can somebody please count that for me....cuz it was a couple times...and are you defending a cold blooded killer.....??? thats...well...i respect your opinion...but is sick

I dunno, was Zarqawi a US citizen and on US soil to be guaranteed the same rights as US citizens? Non-citizens don't get the same rights.

And, was he considered "armed and dangerous?" If thats the case, even according to US law he can be killed rather than captured.

Or was he ever tried in absentia and found guilty?

There are so many reasons comparing Zarqawi to US citizens is a fallacious analogy...
You sir, are a divisive exceptionalist.

YOU ASSHOLE I HAVE A COUSIN IN IRAQ. YOU KNOW NOTHING....PIECE OF SHIT!!!!
Hey, calm down. You don’t know any more than he does about what terrible, terrible things US soldiers are doing in Iraq.

I dunno, was Zarqawi a US citizen and on US soil to be guaranteed the same rights as US citizens? Non-citizens don't get the same rights.

I don't believe anyone is advocating that the soldiers here be treated in a way that denies their legal rights.

The question is whether we, as observers, should withhold our judgement until they are brought to trial and a verdict is reached. If indeed we should not believe the accusations against the soldiers until they are proven in court, there is no reason why the same assumption of innocence - not legal, but in our personal judgements and arguments - should not be extended to al-Zarqawi.

how many video's was the man in taking responsibility for his actions....huh huh ....can somebody please count that for me....cuz it was a couple times...

Irrelevant to my point. I am not making a judgement as to al-Zarqawi's guilt or innocence, I am asking whether or not we should extend to him the same standard that the defenders of the US soldiers involved in the Haditha Massacre say we should extend to them.

Except that these Marines have a legal status, are not being held indefinitely, and are sure to actually get a trial.


just like in gitmo ...


UNCLASSIFIED Current as of March 4, 2005UNCLASSIFIED1JTF-GTMO Information on DetaineesINFORMATION FROM GUANTANAMO DETAINEES The US Government currently maintains custody of approximately 550 enemy combatants in the Global War on Terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many of these enemy combatants are highly trained, dangerous members of al-Qaida, its related terrorist networks, and the former Taliban regime. More than 4,000 reports capture information provided by these detainees, much of it corroborated by other intelligence reporting. This unprecedented body of information has expanded our understanding of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations and continues to prove valuable. Our intelligence and law enforcement communities develop leads, comprehensive assessments, and intelligence products based on information detainees provide. The information includes their leadership structures, recruiting practices, funding mechanisms, relationships, and the cooperation between terrorist groups, as well as training programs, and plans for attacking the United States and other countries. The Joint Task Force, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (JTF-GTMO) remains the single best repository of al-Qaida information in the Department of Defense. Many detainees have admitted close relationships or other access to senior al-Qaida leadership. They provide valuable insights into the structure of that organization and associated terrorist groups. They have identified additional al-Qaida operatives and supporters, and have expanded our understanding of the extent of their presence in Europe, the United States, and throughout the CENTCOM area of operations. Detainees have also provided information on individuals connected to al-Qaida’s pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Exchanges with European allies have supported investigations of Islamic extremists in several European countries. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DETAINEESSupport to combat operations in AfghanistanCoalition forces in Afghanistan continue to capture al-Qaida, Taliban, and anti-coalition militia fighters. Guantanamo detainees remain a valuable resource to identify these recently captured fighters. Detainees also still provide useful information on locations of training compounds and safe houses, terrain features, travel patterns and routes used for smuggling people and equipment, as well as for identifying potential supporters and opponents.Terrorist Trainers and Bomb MakersSome detainees served as trainers in al-Qaida training camps; significant among these are the detainees that served as explosives trainers. Information given includes technical training provided by al-Qaida on building improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the use of poisons. They have also explained the details of training courses and the process used to identify more talented recruits for further training and future operational activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED2Many detainees have been implicated in using, constructing, or being trained to construct IEDs. Some are low-level jihadists with just enough training to construct grenades from soda cans. Others are highly skilled engineers with the ability to design and build sophisticated, remotely triggered bombs made with explosives manufactured from household items. Additionally, detainees have been identified as explosives trainers who passed their techniques on to others through structured courses. The courses ranged from a few days (for basic bomb making) up to several weeks on subjects like electronic circuitry. The detainees have also provided the names of at least seven other explosives trainers still at large. At least one detainee holds a degree in Electrical Engineering. Another detainee has been cooperative enough to draw schematic diagrams of the bombs he designed and built, in addition, he has provided his critiques of the design of IEDs being constructed by terrorists in Iraq. He has also identified a complex detonation system – a dual tone multi-frequency (DTMF) encode/decode system – that had been used in the Chechen conflict, and is now being used on IEDs in Iraq, helping U.S. forces to combat this lethal weapon. Detainees were frequently captured with a type of watch that has been linked to al-Qaida and radical Islamic terrorist IEDs. This particular model of watch is favored by al-Qaida bomb-builders because it allows alarm settings (and, therefore, detonations) more than 24-hours in advance. One detainee also detailed how pagers and cellular telephones are used to initiate detonations. Terrorist OperativesDetainees were either actively involved in operational planning for terrorist attacks or had already participated in attacks in Europe, the United States, and/or central Asia at the time of detention. One detainee attempted to enter the United States in the summer of 2001, and a substantial volume of information suggests that he may have intended to participate in the September 11 attacks. Detainees have also provided information about al-Qaida operatives who remain at large as well as numerous al-Qaida, Taliban, and anti-coalition militia members who remain active in Central Asia, Europe, and the United States. Law enforcement entities in Europe and the United States continue to pursue leads provided by Guantanamo detainees.One detainee identified 11 fellow GTMO detainees as Usama bin Ladin (UBL) bodyguards who all received terrorist training at al Farouq, a known terrorist training camp. This detainee also identified another detainee as UBL’s “spiritual advisor,” a significant role within al-Qaida. Another detainee, the probable 20th9/11 hijacker, confirmed more than 20 detainees as UBL bodyguards who received terrorist training at al Farouq and were active fighters against the northern alliance. This detainee admits attending terrorist training at al Farouq with many of these detainees. Financial IssuesDetainees provide information that helps sort out legitimate financial activity from illegitimate terrorist financing operations, as Islamic extremists exploit existing banking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED3systems to take advantage of widespread informal financial networks. These networks include the hawala system, front companies, and the use of charitable organizations to hide financial transactions. One detainee was a senior member of one such illegitimate international humanitarian aid organization that provided significant and prolonged aid and support to both the Taliban and al Qaida in Afghanistan. He was given a letter by UBL providing assistance in the establishment of three new offices in Afghanistan and at least one office in Pakistan for this organization. The detainee had complete authority over the organization and has stated; “nothing happened in this organization without my knowledge.” This same detainee related that this organizationspent $1 million US dollars in Afghanistan between November 2000 - November 2001. During this time, he admittedly purchased $5,000 US dollars worth of weapons utilizing the organization’s funds, stating they were for NGO personnel protection against the Northern Alliance during the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom. Another detainee claims to have traveled to Cambodia to assist with relief efforts at an unidentified orphanage on the behalf of an Islamic organization. By his own admission, this detainee met UBL as many as four times during July 2001 and is believed to have substantial ties to al-Qaida. He was approached by an al-Qaida leader to straighten out logistics and supply problems that al-Qaida was experiencing in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan.More than a dozen detainees had the cash equivalent of US$1,000-10,000 in their pocketswhen apprehended; four detainees had US$10,000-25,000; two detainees had the cash equivalent of more than US$40,000 each when captured.Terrorist FacilitatorsDetainees have described their experiences with al Qaida recruiters and facilitators, the encouragement they received to participate in jihad, and how their travel was facilitated. Detainees who were actual facilitators have detailed their efforts to send interested young men to training camps in Afghanistan, and for some eventually to meetings withthe highest circles of al Qaida leadership.Over 25 GTMO detainees have been identified by other detainees as being facilitators who provided money, documentation, travel, or safe houses. Detainee Skill SetsMore than 10 percent of the detainees possess college degrees or obtained other higher education, often at western colleges, many in the United States. Among these educated detainees are medical doctors, airplane pilots, aviation specialists, engineers, divers, translators, and lawyers.A detainee, who produced al Qaida videos, was hired by a Taliban leader to provide computer services to include installing hardware and software.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED4Another detainee, who has threatened guards and admits enjoying terrorizing Americans, studied at Texas A&M for 18 months and has acquaintances in the U.S. He also studied English at the University of Texas in Austin. Another detainee, who has been identified as an al Qaida weapons supplier, studied at Embry Riddle Aviation School in Arizona, obtaining a graduate degree in avionics management. One detainee has a Masters degree in Aviation Management. Another detainee has a Masters degree in Petroleum Engineering. Insight into Future Leaders and Centers of ActivityGuantanamo detainees provide a unique insight into the type of individuals likely to become participants, recruiters, and leaders for the Islamic extremist movements. Detainees possess an astonishing variety of skills, educational levels, levels of motivation and experience. It is likely that many Guantanamo detainees would have risen to positions of prominence in the leadership ranks of al Qaida and its associated groups.Since the elimination of Afghanistan as a sanctuary for al Qaida, the organization has endured a transitional period and become a looser network of extremists. In many cases, it has had to rely upon regional or local extremist networks to carry out its missions. A detainee does not have to be a member of al Qaida to provide valuable intelligence. The information provided by detained members of lesser-known extremist groups will prove to be valuable in the future as we continue to work to prevent the resurgence of groups like al Qaida and its supporters.GTMO as a Strategic Interrogation CenterGTMO is currently the only DoD strategic interrogation center and will remain useful as long as the war on terrorism is underway and new enemy combatants are captured and sent there. The lessons learned at GTMO have advanced both the operational art of intelligence, and the development of strategic interrogations doctrine. Detainees Returning to the FightWe know of several former detainees from JTF-GTMO that have rejoined the fight against coalition forces. We have been able to identify at least ten by name. Press reporting indicates al Qaida-linked militants recently kidnapped two Chinese engineers and that former detainee Abdullah Mahsud, their reputed leader, ordered the kidnapping. (Fox News report October 12, 2004, Islamabad the News October 20, 2004, Washington Post October 13, 2004). Mahsud, now reputed to be a militant leader, claimed to be an office clerk and driver for the Taliban from 1996 to 1998 or 1999. He consistently denied having any affiliation with al Qaida. He also claimed to have received no weapons or military training due to his handicap (an amputation resulting from when he stepped on a land mine 10 years ago). He claimed that after September 11, 2001 he was forcibly conscripted by the Taliban military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED5Another released detainee assassinated an Afghan judge. Several former GTMO detainees have been killed in combat with U.S. soldiers and Coalition forces.SELECTED STATEMENTS FROM DETAINEESStatements made by detainees provide valuable insights into the mindset of these terrorists and the continuing threat they pose to the United States and the rest of the world. A detainee who has assaulted GTMO guards on numerous occasions and crafted a weapon in his cell, stated that he can either go back home and kill as many Americans as he possibly can, or he can leave here in a box; either way it's the same to him. A detainee with ties to UBL, the Taliban, and Chechen mujahideen leadership figures told another detainee, “Their day is coming. One day I will enjoy sucking their blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable…”During an interview with U.S. military interrogators this same detainee then stated that he would lead his tribe in exacting revenge against the Saudi Arabian and U.S. governments. “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of US citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four or five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held, and executed. They will have their heads cut off.”After being informed of the Tribunal process, the detainee replied, "Not only am I thinking about threatening the American public, but the whole world." A detainee who has been identified as a UBL bodyguard, stated, “It would be okay for UBL to kill Jewish persons. There is no need to ask for forgiveness for killing a Jew. The Jewish people kill Muslims in Palestine so it's okay to kill Jews. Israel should not exist and be removed from Palestine.” A detainee who has been identified as UBL’s “spiritual advisor” and a relative of a fighter who attacked U.S. Marines on Failaka Island, Kuwait on October 8, 2002, stated,“I pray everyday against the United States.” This detainee repeatedly stated, "The United States government is criminals.” A detainee and self-confessed al Qaida member who produced an al Qaida recruitment video stated, “...the people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent because they paid taxes and participated in the government that fosters repression of Palestinians.” He also stated, “...his group will shake up the U.S. and countries who follow the U.S.” and that, “it is not the quantity of power, but the quality of power, that will win in the end.” A detainee who has assaulted GTMO guards on over 30 occasions, has made gestures of killing a guard and threatened to break a guard’s arm.A detainee, captured by Pakistani authorities and who, while being transported, was involved in a riot during which several Pakistani guards were killed, stated that acts of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED6terrorism are a legitimate way for a Muslim to wage jihad against the United States, even if innocent women and children are killed. He also said that he believes that Muslim jihadists will wipe out the government of the United States within the next 20 years. A detainee described how he was sought to assist an extremist in the purchasing of possible biological weapons-related medical equipment through humanitarian organizational channels. The detainee has also assaulted GTMO guards on various occasions and incited riots in the holding areas.A detainee who admits to being one of UBL’s primary drivers and bodyguards had in his possession surface to air missiles when captured. This detainee identified eight bodyguards currently held at GTMO. A detainee, who fought as a Taliban soldier at Konduz, stated to the MPs that all Americans should die because these are the rules of Allah. The detainee also told the MPs that he would come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep. The detainee went on to say that upon his release from GTMO, he would use the Internet to search for the names and faces of MPs so that he could kill them.Contrasting DETAINEE COMMENTSThe following comments from current and past detainees are in contrast to other detainee comments concerning treatment at GTMO. “Americans are very kind people…If people say that there is mistreatment in Cuba with the detainees, those type speaking are wrong, they treat us like a Muslim not a detainee.”“…the devil Saddam and his party have fallen down. How people go to Najaf and Karbala walking and nobody prohibits them? This was grace of God and the USA to Iraqi people.”“I’m in good health and have good facilities of eating, drinking, living, and playing.”“These people take good care of me…The guards and everybody else is fine. We are allowed to talk to our friends.”“The food is good, the bedrooms are clean and the health care is very good. There is a library full of Islamic books, science books, and literature…Sport, reading, and praying, all of these options are not mandatory for everyone, it is up to the person.”

Only these Marines are being held as " suspects " have not been charged and are in solitary confinment for 23 hours a day and are in chains for 24 hours a day...UNLIKE THE FUCKING GTMO DETAINEE'S ..

How does it feel when your side gets a taste of injustice?

About the same.

Hey, calm down. You don’t know any more than he does about what terrible, terrible things US soldiers are doing in Iraq.


what your saying he's completely oblivious to whats going on around him...i get letters every month..i hear the stories right from the guy...not CNN. I know more than you probably do. ok there are 130,000 soldiers there...and 10 do something wrong...and all of a sudden the US soldier is a terrible machine of death who lives on the blood of innocent children...wow your really sick.

what your saying he's completely oblivious to whats going on around him...i get letters every month..i hear the stories right from the guy...not CNN. I know more than you probably do. ok there are 130,000 soldiers there...and 10 do something wrong...and all of a sudden the US soldier is a terrible machine of death who lives on the blood of innocent children...wow your really sick.

Welcome to NS General where several on here are deeply anti-military and do consider them war criminals even those who don't do anything wrong.

YOU ASSHOLE I HAVE A COUSIN IN IRAQ. YOU KNOW NOTHING....PIECE OF SHIT!!!!

I have alot of family there including my nephew my cousins and in -laws..

They are fighting for the right of assholes like that to express themselves among other forms of liberty .

Try to remember even assholes have a place in the world .

We have libs and leftwingers screaming bloody murder about the terrorist and " suspected " terrorist being held in GTMO....why are they not screaming in defence of these people ? Being held in CAMP PEDELTON in the US .

For the exact same reason why rightwingers aren't screaming bloody murder about terrorists not getting a trial silly. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to defend these marines? Then maybe you should start setting an example by saying the same thing about the ones in Guatamo and demanding they get their trials. "Innocent until guilty" and all that.

Unless of course you're just like the rest of them. One big hypocrite. All ready to say "They're all terrorists" without any evidence aside from the fact that they are incarcerated and held without charges. You've got no moral highground to make claims like you do when you're flinging shit just as fast.

And Tropical Sands, I don't see you talking about having trials for the detainees either.

I have alot of family there including my nephew my cousins and in -laws..

They are fighting for the right of assholes like that to express themselves among other forms of liberty .

Try to remember even assholes have a place in the world .



true..but it is sad that people fail to respect what they are doing...all they want to do is play politics...i bet half of them want our troops to die just so bush looks bad...sad world we live in.

For the exact same reason why rightwingers aren't screaming bloody murder about terrorists not getting a trial silly. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to defend these marines? Then maybe you should start setting an example by saying the same thing about the ones in Guatamo and demanding they get their trials. "Innocent until guilty" and all that.

Unless of course you're just like the rest of them. One big hypocrite. All ready to say "They're all terrorists" without any evidence aside from the fact that they are incarcerated and held without charges. You've got no moral highground to make claims like you do when you're flinging shit just as fast.

And Tropical Sands, I don't see you talking about having trials for the detainees either.

According to Convention I, Article II, of the Geneva Conventions, the detainees are legally captured by military (not police) forces, and are non-uniformed personnel who were ostensibly engaged in hostilities. Later sections indicate that the High Contracting Party (in this case the US) may or may not hold trial - if a trial is held, it must be a fair trial. They fall into the same category as spies and saboteurs. As such, the military could well have had a field court martial on the spot and had them shot.

For the exact same reason why rightwingers aren't screaming bloody murder about terrorists not getting a trial silly. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to defend these marines? Then maybe you should start setting an example by saying the same thing about the ones in Guatamo and demanding they get their trials. "Innocent until guilty" and all that.

Unless of course you're just like the rest of them. One big hypocrite. All ready to say "They're all terrorists" without any evidence aside from the fact that they are incarcerated and held without charges. You've got no moral highground to make claims like you do when you're flinging shit just as fast.

And Tropical Sands, I don't see you talking about having trials for the detainees either.
Thats because you cant read or you care not to read my many post fighting for tribunals and determinations and judicial oversight for all the detainees held by the US ...anywhere .

I guess you failed to notice this info on the DETAINEES .

UNCLASSIFIED Current as of March 4, 2005UNCLASSIFIED1JTF-GTMO Information on DetaineesINFORMATION FROM GUANTANAMO DETAINEES The US Government currently maintains custody of approximately 550 enemy combatants in the Global War on Terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many of these enemy combatants are highly trained, dangerous members of al-Qaida, its related terrorist networks, and the former Taliban regime. More than 4,000 reports capture information provided by these detainees, much of it corroborated by other intelligence reporting. This unprecedented body of information has expanded our understanding of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations and continues to prove valuable. Our intelligence and law enforcement communities develop leads, comprehensive assessments, and intelligence products based on information detainees provide. The information includes their leadership structures, recruiting practices, funding mechanisms, relationships, and the cooperation between terrorist groups, as well as training programs, and plans for attacking the United States and other countries. The Joint Task Force, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (JTF-GTMO) remains the single best repository of al-Qaida information in the Department of Defense. Many detainees have admitted close relationships or other access to senior al-Qaida leadership. They provide valuable insights into the structure of that organization and associated terrorist groups. They have identified additional al-Qaida operatives and supporters, and have expanded our understanding of the extent of their presence in Europe, the United States, and throughout the CENTCOM area of operations. Detainees have also provided information on individuals connected to al-Qaida’s pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Exchanges with European allies have supported investigations of Islamic extremists in several European countries. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DETAINEESSupport to combat operations in AfghanistanCoalition forces in Afghanistan continue to capture al-Qaida, Taliban, and anti-coalition militia fighters. Guantanamo detainees remain a valuable resource to identify these recently captured fighters. Detainees also still provide useful information on locations of training compounds and safe houses, terrain features, travel patterns and routes used for smuggling people and equipment, as well as for identifying potential supporters and opponents.Terrorist Trainers and Bomb MakersSome detainees served as trainers in al-Qaida training camps; significant among these are the detainees that served as explosives trainers. Information given includes technical training provided by al-Qaida on building improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the use of poisons. They have also explained the details of training courses and the process used to identify more talented recruits for further training and future operational activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED2Many detainees have been implicated in using, constructing, or being trained to construct IEDs. Some are low-level jihadists with just enough training to construct grenades from soda cans. Others are highly skilled engineers with the ability to design and build sophisticated, remotely triggered bombs made with explosives manufactured from household items. Additionally, detainees have been identified as explosives trainers who passed their techniques on to others through structured courses. The courses ranged from a few days (for basic bomb making) up to several weeks on subjects like electronic circuitry. The detainees have also provided the names of at least seven other explosives trainers still at large. At least one detainee holds a degree in Electrical Engineering. Another detainee has been cooperative enough to draw schematic diagrams of the bombs he designed and built, in addition, he has provided his critiques of the design of IEDs being constructed by terrorists in Iraq. He has also identified a complex detonation system – a dual tone multi-frequency (DTMF) encode/decode system – that had been used in the Chechen conflict, and is now being used on IEDs in Iraq, helping U.S. forces to combat this lethal weapon. Detainees were frequently captured with a type of watch that has been linked to al-Qaida and radical Islamic terrorist IEDs. This particular model of watch is favored by al-Qaida bomb-builders because it allows alarm settings (and, therefore, detonations) more than 24-hours in advance. One detainee also detailed how pagers and cellular telephones are used to initiate detonations. Terrorist OperativesDetainees were either actively involved in operational planning for terrorist attacks or had already participated in attacks in Europe, the United States, and/or central Asia at the time of detention. One detainee attempted to enter the United States in the summer of 2001, and a substantial volume of information suggests that he may have intended to participate in the September 11 attacks. Detainees have also provided information about al-Qaida operatives who remain at large as well as numerous al-Qaida, Taliban, and anti-coalition militia members who remain active in Central Asia, Europe, and the United States. Law enforcement entities in Europe and the United States continue to pursue leads provided by Guantanamo detainees.One detainee identified 11 fellow GTMO detainees as Usama bin Ladin (UBL) bodyguards who all received terrorist training at al Farouq, a known terrorist training camp. This detainee also identified another detainee as UBL’s “spiritual advisor,” a significant role within al-Qaida. Another detainee, the probable 20th9/11 hijacker, confirmed more than 20 detainees as UBL bodyguards who received terrorist training at al Farouq and were active fighters against the northern alliance. This detainee admits attending terrorist training at al Farouq with many of these detainees. Financial IssuesDetainees provide information that helps sort out legitimate financial activity from illegitimate terrorist financing operations, as Islamic extremists exploit existing banking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED3systems to take advantage of widespread informal financial networks. These networks include the hawala system, front companies, and the use of charitable organizations to hide financial transactions. One detainee was a senior member of one such illegitimate international humanitarian aid organization that provided significant and prolonged aid and support to both the Taliban and al Qaida in Afghanistan. He was given a letter by UBL providing assistance in the establishment of three new offices in Afghanistan and at least one office in Pakistan for this organization. The detainee had complete authority over the organization and has stated; “nothing happened in this organization without my knowledge.” This same detainee related that this organizationspent $1 million US dollars in Afghanistan between November 2000 - November 2001. During this time, he admittedly purchased $5,000 US dollars worth of weapons utilizing the organization’s funds, stating they were for NGO personnel protection against the Northern Alliance during the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom. Another detainee claims to have traveled to Cambodia to assist with relief efforts at an unidentified orphanage on the behalf of an Islamic organization. By his own admission, this detainee met UBL as many as four times during July 2001 and is believed to have substantial ties to al-Qaida. He was approached by an al-Qaida leader to straighten out logistics and supply problems that al-Qaida was experiencing in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan.More than a dozen detainees had the cash equivalent of US$1,000-10,000 in their pocketswhen apprehended; four detainees had US$10,000-25,000; two detainees had the cash equivalent of more than US$40,000 each when captured.Terrorist FacilitatorsDetainees have described their experiences with al Qaida recruiters and facilitators, the encouragement they received to participate in jihad, and how their travel was facilitated. Detainees who were actual facilitators have detailed their efforts to send interested young men to training camps in Afghanistan, and for some eventually to meetings withthe highest circles of al Qaida leadership.Over 25 GTMO detainees have been identified by other detainees as being facilitators who provided money, documentation, travel, or safe houses. Detainee Skill SetsMore than 10 percent of the detainees possess college degrees or obtained other higher education, often at western colleges, many in the United States. Among these educated detainees are medical doctors, airplane pilots, aviation specialists, engineers, divers, translators, and lawyers.A detainee, who produced al Qaida videos, was hired by a Taliban leader to provide computer services to include installing hardware and software.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED4Another detainee, who has threatened guards and admits enjoying terrorizing Americans, studied at Texas A&M for 18 months and has acquaintances in the U.S. He also studied English at the University of Texas in Austin. Another detainee, who has been identified as an al Qaida weapons supplier, studied at Embry Riddle Aviation School in Arizona, obtaining a graduate degree in avionics management. One detainee has a Masters degree in Aviation Management. Another detainee has a Masters degree in Petroleum Engineering. Insight into Future Leaders and Centers of ActivityGuantanamo detainees provide a unique insight into the type of individuals likely to become participants, recruiters, and leaders for the Islamic extremist movements. Detainees possess an astonishing variety of skills, educational levels, levels of motivation and experience. It is likely that many Guantanamo detainees would have risen to positions of prominence in the leadership ranks of al Qaida and its associated groups.Since the elimination of Afghanistan as a sanctuary for al Qaida, the organization has endured a transitional period and become a looser network of extremists. In many cases, it has had to rely upon regional or local extremist networks to carry out its missions. A detainee does not have to be a member of al Qaida to provide valuable intelligence. The information provided by detained members of lesser-known extremist groups will prove to be valuable in the future as we continue to work to prevent the resurgence of groups like al Qaida and its supporters.GTMO as a Strategic Interrogation CenterGTMO is currently the only DoD strategic interrogation center and will remain useful as long as the war on terrorism is underway and new enemy combatants are captured and sent there. The lessons learned at GTMO have advanced both the operational art of intelligence, and the development of strategic interrogations doctrine. Detainees Returning to the FightWe know of several former detainees from JTF-GTMO that have rejoined the fight against coalition forces. We have been able to identify at least ten by name. Press reporting indicates al Qaida-linked militants recently kidnapped two Chinese engineers and that former detainee Abdullah Mahsud, their reputed leader, ordered the kidnapping. (Fox News report October 12, 2004, Islamabad the News October 20, 2004, Washington Post October 13, 2004). Mahsud, now reputed to be a militant leader, claimed to be an office clerk and driver for the Taliban from 1996 to 1998 or 1999. He consistently denied having any affiliation with al Qaida. He also claimed to have received no weapons or military training due to his handicap (an amputation resulting from when he stepped on a land mine 10 years ago). He claimed that after September 11, 2001 he was forcibly conscripted by the Taliban military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED5Another released detainee assassinated an Afghan judge. Several former GTMO detainees have been killed in combat with U.S. soldiers and Coalition forces.SELECTED STATEMENTS FROM DETAINEESStatements made by detainees provide valuable insights into the mindset of these terrorists and the continuing threat they pose to the United States and the rest of the world. A detainee who has assaulted GTMO guards on numerous occasions and crafted a weapon in his cell, stated that he can either go back home and kill as many Americans as he possibly can, or he can leave here in a box; either way it's the same to him. A detainee with ties to UBL, the Taliban, and Chechen mujahideen leadership figures told another detainee, “Their day is coming. One day I will enjoy sucking their blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable…”During an interview with U.S. military interrogators this same detainee then stated that he would lead his tribe in exacting revenge against the Saudi Arabian and U.S. governments. “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of US citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four or five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held, and executed. They will have their heads cut off.”After being informed of the Tribunal process, the detainee replied, "Not only am I thinking about threatening the American public, but the whole world." A detainee who has been identified as a UBL bodyguard, stated, “It would be okay for UBL to kill Jewish persons. There is no need to ask for forgiveness for killing a Jew. The Jewish people kill Muslims in Palestine so it's okay to kill Jews. Israel should not exist and be removed from Palestine.” A detainee who has been identified as UBL’s “spiritual advisor” and a relative of a fighter who attacked U.S. Marines on Failaka Island, Kuwait on October 8, 2002, stated,“I pray everyday against the United States.” This detainee repeatedly stated, "The United States government is criminals.” A detainee and self-confessed al Qaida member who produced an al Qaida recruitment video stated, “...the people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent because they paid taxes and participated in the government that fosters repression of Palestinians.” He also stated, “...his group will shake up the U.S. and countries who follow the U.S.” and that, “it is not the quantity of power, but the quality of power, that will win in the end.” A detainee who has assaulted GTMO guards on over 30 occasions, has made gestures of killing a guard and threatened to break a guard’s arm.A detainee, captured by Pakistani authorities and who, while being transported, was involved in a riot during which several Pakistani guards were killed, stated that acts of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
UNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED6terrorism are a legitimate way for a Muslim to wage jihad against the United States, even if innocent women and children are killed. He also said that he believes that Muslim jihadists will wipe out the government of the United States within the next 20 years. A detainee described how he was sought to assist an extremist in the purchasing of possible biological weapons-related medical equipment through humanitarian organizational channels. The detainee has also assaulted GTMO guards on various occasions and incited riots in the holding areas.A detainee who admits to being one of UBL’s primary drivers and bodyguards had in his possession surface to air missiles when captured. This detainee identified eight bodyguards currently held at GTMO. A detainee, who fought as a Taliban soldier at Konduz, stated to the MPs that all Americans should die because these are the rules of Allah. The detainee also told the MPs that he would come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep. The detainee went on to say that upon his release from GTMO, he would use the Internet to search for the names and faces of MPs so that he could kill them.Contrasting DETAINEE COMMENTSThe following comments from current and past detainees are in contrast to other detainee comments concerning treatment at GTMO. “Americans are very kind people…If people say that there is mistreatment in Cuba with the detainees, those type speaking are wrong, they treat us like a Muslim not a detainee.”“…the devil Saddam and his party have fallen down. How people go to Najaf and Karbala walking and nobody prohibits them? This was grace of God and the USA to Iraqi people.”“I’m in good health and have good facilities of eating, drinking, living, and playing.”“These people take good care of me…The guards and everybody else is fine. We are allowed to talk to our friends.”“The food is good, the bedrooms are clean and the health care is very good. There is a library full of Islamic books, science books, and literature…Sport, reading, and praying, all of these options are not mandatory for everyone, it is up to the person.”

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:6qmWUN8gg_MJ:www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050304info.pdf+gtmo&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4


Just another brainwashed leftwing / liberal tool ...is that it ?

just like in gitmo ...

I read that piece you quoted; did I miss the part where it actually addressed the point Francis Street was making?

Only these Marines are being held as " suspects " have not been charged and are in solitary confinment for 23 hours a day and are in chains for 24 hours a day...

Prove it.

I read that piece you quoted; did I miss the part where it actually addressed the point Francis Street was making?



Prove it.


The point is WHY do I have to prove it ?

Why isnt the MEDIA all over it ?

What the fuck is wrong when we cant offer out own soldiers the protections we want to give fucking terrorist ?

Embattled Marine's Father Speaks Out

POSTED: 3:36 pm PDT June 9, 2006
UPDATED: 5:31 pm PDT June 9, 2006

Email This Story | Print This Story

SAN DIEGO -- A local man said his son -- a Marine being investigated for killing an unarmed Iraqi -- served as the tip of the spear in Iraq and thinks that spear is unfairly being aimed at his son now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss: War In Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John Jodka III is one of eight service members in the brig at Camp Pendleton (a sailor is also being held in connection with the incident). His father told NBC 7/39 that Jodka is proud to serve his country and is firmly convinced of his son's innocence.

No charges have been filed against Jodka, but the 20-year-old is being held in the brig because of a shooting on April 26 that left a 52-year old civilian dead in a village west of Baghdad. The men are accused by high-ranking American officials of attempting to cover up the killing. Authorities suspect the Navy corpsman and Marines tried to make it look like the man was armed and planting a roadside bomb.


While he was looking through old photographs, Jodka's father told NBC 7/39 that he believed the system would exonerate his son and the others who are being held.

Jodka als said he is upset his son is being held in solitary confinement.

"It's disappointing and puzzling to me, this treatment and lack of acknowledgment that these men have served well," said Jodka.

Jodka's father said that it is hard now to see his son in chains. Growing up in Encinitas, he did well in school, but he later left college because his drive to become a Marine and serve his country was too strong.

Previous Stories:

true..but it is sad that people fail to respect what they are doing...all they want to do is play politics...
Hey, they're your troops. Not mine.

i bet half of them want our troops to die just so bush looks bad...sad world we live in.

I think they'd be a lot safer at home :)

American Troops In Shackles
By Michelle Malkin
June 14, 2006

Did you know there are seven young Marines and a Navy corpsman sitting in a military brig right now in leg and wrist shackles -- despite the fact that they've not been charged with any crime?

The men are in solitary confinement, locked in 8'x8' cells at San Diego's Camp Pendleton, as investigators probe an April 26 incident involving the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. They are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglas. Military blabbermouths have told the press that the service members are suspected of kidnapping and shooting a man in the Iraqi town of Hamdaniya. The Iraqi man's family reportedly came forward seeking payment for his death as media hysteria set in over the separate alleged atrocity in Haditha.

These men -- our men -- may be innocent. They may be guilty. Charges may or may not be filed this week. But this much is certain: The media leaks and the Murtha-fication of the case are already taking a heavy toll on the troops and their families. The headlines have already convicted them: "Iraqi's Slaying Planned By Marines, Official Says." "Marines Planned to Kill Iraqi Civilian, Then Planted Evidence



Why is this ????

Hey, they're your troops. Not mine.

I think they'd be a lot safer at home :)

Depends on where you call "home" in the US.

If you live where I do, yes.

If you live in Ward 7 or 8 in Washington, D.C., or in Anacostia, you're safer in Iraq.

At least you have body armor in Iraq.

The point is WHY do I have to prove it ?

Why isnt the MEDIA all over it ?

What the fuck is wrong when we cant offer out own soldiers the protections we want to give fucking terrorist ?

So where does it state that he is being denied any of the legal protections "we want to give to fucking terrorists"?

Why is this allowed to happen ???

News
Congress | Special Reports | Frontline Photos |
June 12, 2006

Not yet charged, eight under suspicion wait in solitary

By Gidget Fuentes
Times staff writer


OCEANSIDE, Calif. — They remain behind bars at the Camp Pendleton brig, in solitary confinement, as they await their fate under the heavy weight of suspicion in an Iraqi man’s death.

Seven Marines and one sailor, removed from combat patrols in Iraq and put into solitary confinement, are being investigated in connection with the April 26 shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in the village of Hamdaniya.


As of June 8, none of the eight at the brig — and another four Marines restricted to the base — has been charged, and officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service is continuing its investigation into the man’s death.

The men initially were confined while still deployed in Iraq with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines. Attorneys are anticipating charges of murder, kidnapping and conspiracy. The Marines and sailor spend their days mostly in small, 8-by-9-foot cells, alone.

Despite the restrictions, the men are trying to remain optimistic. Jane Siegel, a retired colonel and attorney in San Marcos, Calif., represents Pfc. John Jodka, one of the Marines from Kilo Company’s 2nd Platoon being held at the brig.

Jodka, a 20-year-old squad automatic weapon gunner who enlisted last summer, “still believes in the system,” Siegel said. “His spirit is gung-ho.”

Defense attorneys have tried, unsuccessfully, to get officials to ease the restraints on their clients while they await possible charges. The lawyers disagree with the official reasoning — that the eight all pose a flight risk — and note that four others in the platoon have only been restricted to the base.

Military investigators are looking into allegations that the Marines pulled a man from his home, shot him to death and then set up his body with a rifle and shovel so it appeared he was burying a roadside bomb. According to news reports, the family of the man, which raised concerns to military officials in Iraq on May 1, has permitted his body to be exhumed for the investigation.

Preliminary findings in the Hamdaniya investigation led officials to impose the “maximum” restraint, said 2nd Lt. Lawton King, a 1st Marine Division spokesman. “When service members leave their cell, they are fully restrained with handcuffs attached to a leather belt and leg cuffs while being escorted by a correctional specialist as a safety precaution,” he said. The measures are in line with pretrial confinement regulations, he added.

But defense attorneys point out that similar restraints haven’t been imposed on anyone with Kilo Company of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, whose members are under investigation in connection with the Nov. 19 deaths of 24 civilians in the Iraqi city of Hadithah.

The Marines and sailor with 3/5 returned to Pendleton on May 24 and checked into 1st Marine Division’s Headquarters Battalion before they were placed in the brig, said Maj. Jeffrey Nyhart, a base spokesman.

Defense attorneys said the men were initially put into confinement May 12 while still in Iraq.

“They were pulled out of the unit. They were brought to [Camp] Fallujah, and they were interrogated in long, long sessions,” Siegel said. Each was separated from the others and kept in a locked room, which she called “tantamount to confinement.”

The confinement date is critical, since the military has 120 days from the initial confinement to arraign someone on charges.


For more on this story, including more from the lawyers and how the eight service members are biding their time in solitary, see this week’s issue of Marine Corps Times

Why is this allowed to happen ???
Welcome to the World.

Why is this ????

Michelle Malkin?

Really?


*snip*

Touche :D

Let me know when its enough proof.

Marine Custody Protest
Published: 6/11/2006 1:34:29 AM


Supporters of seven Marines and a Navy Corpsman held at Camp Pendleton in connection with the death of an Iraqi civilian picketed outside the base's main gate in Oceanside Saturday to call for their release.

Marine PFC John J. Jodka, 20, of Encinitas, and seven others are being held in solitary confinement while an investigation is conducted into the events of April 26, according to his father's Web site, innocentmarine.com.

The seven are suspected of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdania, a village west of Baghdad.

The demonstrators said they were upset that the Marines are being held without being charged.

"These kids haven't been charged with anything," decorated Vietnam War veteran John Sullivan told CBS2. "They haven't been convicted of anything and they are being treated worse than the guys in Gitmo."

He said the prisoners should be presumed innocent until found guilty.

"Unless you have been in those situations, you really don't have any clue what the level of stress is," he said.

The first two protesters arrived about 8 a.m., said Marine Lt. Lori Miller.

Throughout the day more people arrived and swelled the ranks, Miller said.

They shouted slogans such as "Killing the enemy is not murder," and carried signs that read "No shackles for heroes," and "Free the Pendleton 8."

"I want the Marines to know that they are not forgotten, that people are out here thinking of them," another protester told the TV station.

Jodka's father set up a Web site to help raise money for his son's legal defense.

Jodka is a gunner with the 1st Squad, 2nd Platoon, Darkhorse 3/5, 1 Marine Division, according to the Web site.

The Marine Corps is assigning military defense attorneys to the eight, Maj. Jeff Nyhart told the North County Times.

Jane Siegel, who is defending Jodka, told the newspaper her client has already been assigned a military attorney, which is unusual before charges have been filed.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating whether the eight from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment's Kilo Company conspired to kidnap and shoot a 52-year-old Iraqi civilian, Hashim Ibrahim Awad al-Zobaie.

No charges have been filed, but Siegel said Marine Capt. Scott Joiner told her that he had been assigned to help defend Jodka.

Jodka is the only one of the defendants to be publicly identified.

His father told the newspaper many people have voiced their support for his son.

"The comments have been overwhelmingly positive," Jodka said.

He said the families of the Marines in custody have also set up an e-mail network to support each another and share information.

"The families all seem to be doing very well and are poised for the next bump in the road," Siegel told the newspaper. "That will be the charges."

She said charges were not expected to be filed for a few days, until autopsy results are in.

Family members and friends of the Iraqi man said Marines took him from his home, shot him four times in the face and planted an assault rifle and shovel next to his body, the Washington Post reported earlier.

The Marines under investigation said in written statements that Hashim was digging a hole for a roadside bomb and was killed after a short gun battle, according to the Post.

Touche :D

I keep trying to make the point that the world is a nasty place full of nasty people and nasty systems and nasty ideologies that all boil down in the end to matters of survival as perceived by the immediate people involved. That, and if you make the mistake of bending over, the world will fuck you hard.

It really has nothing to do with what people believe, or what color their skin is. In a world where enough people love to kill, and everyone wants to get something for themselves, arguing morality is about as smart as discussing philosophy with a poisonous snake.

The conversation will be one-sided, and you're going to get bit.

Michelle Malkin?

Really?



Touche :D


Whats the matter YOUR version of the truth has to have a special seal...what of the other sources like the guys family ?

At Malkin had the balls others seem to be unable to find .


Unless of course they are crying over terrorist.

Let me know when its enough proof.
Oh, I believe they're being fucked hard. Probably because the Marines don't want to be seen as soft on suspects.

The Marines have more honor than most other services - they have this idea that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. So when Marines fuck up like this, the rest turn on them like wolves.

According to Convention I, Article II, of the Geneva Conventions, the detainees are legally captured by military (not police) forces, and are non-uniformed personnel who were ostensibly engaged in hostilities. Later sections indicate that the High Contracting Party (in this case the US) may or may not hold trial - if a trial is held, it must be a fair trial. They fall into the same category as spies and saboteurs. As such, the military could well have had a field court martial on the spot and had them shot.


And if you doubt that read sections 3 , 4 , 5 and six of the geneva convention .

Google it .

Let me know when its enough proof.
Ain't military justice shit?

Ain't military justice shit?
Interestingly, we had a saying in the Army. If they have decided they have enough evidence to court martial, they have you.

The conviction rate is well over 90 percent.

Oh, I believe they're being fucked hard. Probably because the Marines don't want to be seen as soft on suspects.

The Marines have more honor than most other services - they have this idea that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. So when Marines fuck up like this, the rest turn on them like wolves.


Just like this guy ...tried and convicted in the media...then forensic evidence cleared him and he gets to shove it up there ass now,,,

The Marines accused of breaking the rules of engagement at Haditha are not the first U.S. servicemen who have been accused of wrongdoing in Iraq. In April 2005 on a raid in the Sunni triangle, Marine Lieutenant Ilario Pantano shot and killed two Iraqi insurgents. And months later, another Marine disputed his claim that he had acted in self-defense and Pantano was relieved of his command and charged with premeditated murder. It took until May of 2005 for his name to be cleared.

Lieutenant Pantano has now written about his experiences in his brand-new book "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy." He's joining us now in a cable news exclusive tonight



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199275,00.html