NationStates Jolt Archive

A Navy hospital corpsman who said he watched seven members of his Marine squad repeatedly shoot an unarmed Iraqi in the head and chest in April was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison, which was reduced to one year in a plea agreement.

The men, all members of Kilo Company in the Third Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, are accused of dragging Hashim Ibrahim Awad from his home, binding his hands and feet, gagging him and then shooting him at point-blank range; and later planting evidence and lying to cover up his death.

He also said: “I wanted to be part of the team. I wanted to be loyal.”

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html

A year seems right for a plea agreement for someone not directly involved in the action, since the assumption is that he didn't come forward and report the crime from the beginning. Maybe a little light, but if the rest spend significant time in jail, I can live with that.

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html

He went to jail not because he witnessed a murder, but because he was an accessory to the crime and aided and abetted the murderers by not reporting it and helping to conceal the crime.

It's pretty straightforward.

a year seems about right.

have the actual participants gone to court yet?

How long before MTAE's head explodes from the answers he's gotten already? 5, 4, 3....

Seems fair enough.

I would say a year is a very reasonable punishment.

Be careful how willing you are to defend people like this. It's his type that gives the rest of the military a bad name, and alienates people to the extent that it's your guys that start getting killed.

Personally I'd be tempted to let him off if his testimony was the only way to convict those who actually did this - as they would ahve done it wether or not he had witnessed it and to directly intervene could ahve put himself at considerable danger.

Then execute those directly responsible.

For aiding and abetting in a premeditated murder, a year with a plea agreement sounds right.

The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail?

In being loyal to his squad he participated in an illegal coverup. He is going to jail because his loyalties were towards his squad, and not to the law.

In being loyal to his squad he participated in an illegal coverup. He is going to jail because his loyalties were towards his squad, and not to the law.

Here's the thing MTAE isn't taking into account--we see the Iraqis as human beings with rights, which is why we see the plea arrangement as fair or possibly even light punishment.

Personally I'd be tempted to let him off if his testimony was the only way to convict those who actually did this - as they would ahve done it wether or not he had witnessed it and to directly intervene could ahve put himself at considerable danger.

Then execute those directly responsible.

I'm certainly not going to get involved in a capital punishment debate here, but executing seven men for killing one sounds a bit nutty.

Here's the thing MTAE isn't taking into account--we see the Iraqis as human beings with rights, which is why we see the plea arrangement as fair or possibly even light punishment.

personally I'd rather see 3-5 with the possibility of getting out in 2.5

That being said if his testimony will help bring to justice murderers who will pay for their actions...I think a year is good enough.

He went to jail not because he witnessed a murder, but because he was an accessory to the crime and aided and abetted the murderers by not reporting it and helping to conceal the crime.

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US. The squard witnessed someone they knew was a terrorist being let off 3 consecutive times because of lack of evidence. Combined with the extreme tensions, the piss-poor conditions in Iraq, and being shot at every 5 minutes, I can't blame them. They finally snapped. This guy was too scared to report his squad -- he'd probably get ostracized if not beaten for doing something like that, not to mention that he was loyal to his squad and didn't want to get them in trouble. He took the reasonable course of action and decided not to participate in the murder in any way whatsoever -- his only crime was witnessing a murder and being implicitly coerced in covering it up. If you just saw a drug dealer getting shot and the murderer tells you to help him dispose of the body, are you going to say "hold on a second -- let me call the cops"? Hell, no. You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it. Only in America could something like that happen.

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US.

I don't care. I don't care what their life was like (they did volunteer after all), I don't care how frustrated they were, I don't care how bad they felt in that enviornment.

They committed murder.

And he helped them cover it up.

You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it.

If he held off for as long as necessary to ensure his safety, then ok, I can respect that. He didn't. He waited for MONTHS.

I would say a year is a very reasonable punishment.

Be careful how willing you are to defend people like this. It's his type that gives the rest of the military a bad name, and alienates people to the extent that it's your guys that start getting killed.

I would say its more than reasonable, I would have expected 2-3 years.

I don't care. I don't care what their life was like (they did volunteer after all), I don't care how frustrated they were, I don't care how bad they felt in that enviornment.

They committed murder.

And he helped them cover it up.



If he held off for as long as necessary to ensure his safety, then ok, I can respect that. He didn't. He waited for MONTHS.

And I would imagine he only gave in when he did because otherwise he was going down for the whole count with the others.

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US. The squard witnessed someone they knew was a terrorist being let off 3 consecutive times because of lack of evidence. Combined with the extreme tensions, the piss-poor conditions in Iraq, and being shot at every 5 minutes, I can't blame them. They finally snapped. This guy was too scared to report his squad -- he'd probably get ostracized if not beaten for doing something like that, not to mention that he was loyal to his squad and didn't want to get them in trouble. He took the reasonable course of action and decided not to participate in the murder in any way whatsoever -- his only crime was witnessing a murder and being implicitly coerced in covering it up. If you just saw a drug dealer getting shot and the murderer tells you to help him dispose of the body, are you going to say "hold on a second -- let me call the cops"? Hell, no. You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it. Only in America could something like that happen.

thousands of american soldiers are in that same situation. they dont murder anyone.

I'm certainly not going to get involved in a capital punishment debate here, but executing seven men for killing one sounds a bit nutty.

Ok.. that was a bit 'enthuastic'.

Re-wording...

If all seven are found through trial to have had approximately similar levels of involvement then they should all be punished to a similar level. If some are significantly more heavily involved they should be punished more harshly. IMO it is reasonable to execute the lot (again - not wanting a death penalty sidetrack) if they were all about equally involved. Sure it's seven lives for one, but AFAIK punishments are not distributed between participants when there are more than one party.

Say you have a murder - the sentence is 30 years. If you ahve two people playing an equal role you would not then say they should each serve 15 years would you? 5 people and they go away for 6 each? I just don't see why the punishments should be less for the individuals just because more than one person was involved in the crime.

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US. The squard witnessed someone they knew was a terrorist being let off 3 consecutive times because of lack of evidence. Combined with the extreme tensions, the piss-poor conditions in Iraq, and being shot at every 5 minutes, I can't blame them. They finally snapped. This guy was too scared to report his squad -- he'd probably get ostracized if not beaten for doing something like that, not to mention that he was loyal to his squad and didn't want to get them in trouble. He took the reasonable course of action and decided not to participate in the murder in any way whatsoever -- his only crime was witnessing a murder and being implicitly coerced in covering it up. If you just saw a drug dealer getting shot and the murderer tells you to help him dispose of the body, are you going to say "hold on a second -- let me call the cops"? Hell, no. You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it. Only in America could something like that happen.

Regardless of where they are, or how little evidence there was that the person they killed was a terrorist(not that the irony of them killing a man because there wasn't enough evidence he was a terrorist will be lost on anyone), they violated the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice). He violated the UCMJ. He got caught. End of story.

I'm certainly not going to get involved in a capital punishment debate here, but executing seven men for killing one sounds a bit nutty.

Ok.. that was a bit 'enthuastic'.

Re-wording...

If all seven are found through trial to have had approximately similar levels of involvement then they should all be punished to a similar level. If some are significantly more heavily involved they should be punished more harshly. IMO it is reasonable to execute the lot (again - not wanting a death penalty sidetrack) if they were all about equally involved. Sure it's seven lives for one, but AFAIK punishments are not distributed between participants when there are more than one party.

Say you have a murder - the sentence is 30 years. If you ahve two people playing an equal role you would not then say they should each serve 15 years would you? 5 people and they go away for 6 each? I just don't see why the punishments should be less for the individuals just because more than one person was involved in the crime.

And I would imagine he only gave in when he did because otherwise he was going down for the whole count with the others.

There's a point to that. If he waited a few days until he was safely on base where he could be put into protective custody, or if he met privately with his commander after the fact, they could have protected him.

I would assign no guilt to him if he protected himself. He didn't. He waited for MONTHS, until either his concience gave out, or he felt the noose tightening on his own neck, and sold out the people he was so "loyal" to.

There is only one good reason to take a human life, when that person is a direct threat to you or others.

This man was not. He was an innocent. And they took his life. They murdered him.

And he saw them do it. And he did nothing. And the weeks went by, and he did nothing. And the cover up grew, and he did nothing.

He saw them commit murder, and he did nothing.

And for that he should be thankful every day for the next year and for the rest of his life that this is all he's getting for it.

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US. The squard witnessed someone they knew was a terrorist being let off 3 consecutive times because of lack of evidence. Combined with the extreme tensions, the piss-poor conditions in Iraq, and being shot at every 5 minutes, I can't blame them. They finally snapped. This guy was too scared to report his squad -- he'd probably get ostracized if not beaten for doing something like that, not to mention that he was loyal to his squad and didn't want to get them in trouble. He took the reasonable course of action and decided not to participate in the murder in any way whatsoever -- his only crime was witnessing a murder and being implicitly coerced in covering it up. If you just saw a drug dealer getting shot and the murderer tells you to help him dispose of the body, are you going to say "hold on a second -- let me call the cops"? Hell, no. You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it. Only in America could something like that happen.

Soldiers don't get a license to kill because they are frustrated. They kill as part of their military duties, which did not include kidnapping a man, killing him and then making it look as though it was a firefight. This particular soldier did nothing to stop the murder, he did not report it once he was safe at base, and he did not do so out the demands of conscience. He did it because he would have gotten 10 years without a plea agreement; in other words, he did it to save his own ass. A guy who aids in a murder and coverup doesn't get off light because he didn't want to do it, he gets off light by giving testimony about the actual murderers.

I'd say I'm surprised they didn't get more. The military is notorious for having much more stict punishments than the general populace.

Soldiers don't get a license to kill because they are frustrated. They kill as part of their military duties, which did not include kidnapping a man, killing him and then making it look as though it was a firefight. This particular soldier did nothing to stop the murder, he did not report it once he was safe at base, and he did not do so out the demands of conscience. He did it because he would have gotten 10 years without a plea agreement; in other words, he did it to save his own ass. A guy who aids in a murder and coverup doesn't get off light because he didn't want to do it, he gets off light by giving testimony about the actual murderers.

And getting off light doesn't always mean getting a walk.

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html
1 yr due to a plea agreement... probably to testify against his compatriots.

wanting to fit in, to belong... "I was just following orders!"

without knowing the details, I think he got the correct punnishment.

A Navy hospital corpsman who said he watched seven members of his Marine squad repeatedly shoot an unarmed Iraqi in the head and chest in April was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison, which was reduced to one year in a plea agreement. also, i don't think there was much he could do to stop them... but he should've tried.

A guy who aids in a murder and coverup doesn't get off light because he didn't want to do it, he gets off light by giving testimony about the actual murderers.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.
Fuck you, you little piece of shit. Don't you dare. Don't you fucking dare.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.

Bingo! Liberal!

I was waiting for that word. :)

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.

Why should they encourage their own soldiers to abandon adeherence to Army regulations and act as they please? The squad acted in defiance of their orders and duties, and the military has acted rightly in punishing the soldiers responsible. Loyalty to the squad is good, but not when it overrides loyalty to the Army as it did this time.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.

no. you are completely wrong

we are not (supposedly) in iraq as conquering overlords. we are trying our best (bush's best) to get them on our side.

in order to have the iraqis feel like we are not there as invaders but as allies helping them to rebuild their country, we must punish all crimes committed by our troops. we have to convince them that we respect them and their laws. that we consider the life of an iraqi as being as important as an american life.

if we leave the iraqis with the impression that we are there to set up a puppet government with the mission to steal their oil, if they think we hate them and their religion, we will never get out of there with any kind of peace.

if we leave the iraqis with the impression that we are there to set up a puppet government with the mission to steal their oil, if they think we hate them and their religion, we will never get out of there with any kind of peace.

The Iraqis know that many US soldiers aren't right in the head -- the continuous horrors of war have driven them to the brink of insanity. The relentless campaign of terror waged by the insurgents has affected the way the perceive reality. This is a given. The US military should be more accomodating to this fact; you'd be shaken, too, if you were subjected to what our brave men and women in uniform are. The Iraqis also know that we are trying our best to construct a functional democracy in the region, and they know we have succeeded in this attempt; an Iraqi premier was, indeed, democratically elected. The only task left facing us is how to gradually extend the power of that government, and we are trying to train Iraqi troops to secure the peace. They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances in Iraq, many American troops do hate the hell-hole that is Iraq, and anything associated with it.

the life of an iraqi as being as important as an american life.

From a completely objective point of view, it's not the same thing. There are 26 000 000 Iraqi citizens currently in Iraq. We have, say, 150 000 US troops in Iraq. Simple math will determine that the life of 1 US soldier is equivalent to the lives of 173 Iraqis.

The Iraqis know that many US soldiers aren't right in the head -- the continuous horrors of war have driven them to the brink of insanity. The relentless campaign of terror waged by the insurgents has affected the way the perceive reality. This is a given. The US military should be more accomodating to this fact; you'd be shaken, too, if you were subjected to what our brave men and women in uniform are. The Iraqis also know that we are trying our best to construct a functional democracy in the region, and they know we have succeeded in this attempt; an Iraqi premier was, indeed, democratically elected. The only task left facing us is how to gradually extend the power of that government, and we are trying to train Iraqi troops to secure the peace. They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances in Iraq, many American troops do hate the hell-hole that is Iraq, and anything associated with it.

The soldiers are responsible for their own actions. Period.

From a completely objective point of view, it's not the same thing. There are 26 000 000 Iraqi citizens currently in Iraq. We have, say, 150 000 US troops in Iraq. Simple math will determine that the life of 1 US soldier is equivalent to the lives of 173 Iraqis

Since when does the worth of a people's lives depend on the population of their homeland?

You have to realize that Iraq is very different from the US. The squard witnessed someone they knew was a terrorist being let off 3 consecutive times because of lack of evidence. Combined with the extreme tensions, the piss-poor conditions in Iraq, and being shot at every 5 minutes, I can't blame them. They finally snapped.
Absolutely no excuse!

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., Oct. 6 -- Eight members of a Marine squad planned to kill a suspected Iraqi insurgent and developed a cover story before their April raid, but when they could not find their target, they pulled a neighbor from his bed and shot him to death instead, a Navy medic who was part of the group testified Friday.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600132.html)
They murdered an innocent man, it seems. In cold blood. No excuse.


This guy was too scared to report his squad -- he'd probably get ostracized if not beaten for doing something like that, not to mention that he was loyal to his squad and didn't want to get them in trouble. He took the reasonable course of action and decided not to participate in the murder in any way whatsoever -- his only crime was witnessing a murder and being implicitly coerced in covering it up.
No. Failure to act to stop them is a crime. Just soing nothing is a crime - he wasn't a random witness, he was part of the group that had planned this. His loyalty to the squad made him an accomplice.


If you just saw a drug dealer getting shot and the murderer tells you to help him dispose of the body, are you going to say "hold on a second -- let me call the cops"? Hell, no. You do what the guy says and hope he doesn't shoot you. If you then report the murder to the police, is it a reasonable punishment to be thrown in prison for a year?! Damn. In the end, he finally decided to do the right thing and he gets tossed in jail for it.
See, your analogy is flawed. Here's a more accurate one: "You and your friend plan to kill a drug dealer. When you can't find him, your friend wants to kill a random person instead. You do nothing to stop him, and only watch as he kills the guy - because you don't want to participate in the murder. You then help him dispose of the body. When the police start investigating you months later, you give up your friend."

He deserves jailtime.

Only in America could something like that happen.
Luckily, no. But it is good news for America that it did happen.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.
Complete and utter bullshite, the entire post.

Murder should not and cannot be accepted.

The Iraqis know that many US soldiers aren't right in the head -- the continuous horrors of war have driven them to the brink of insanity. The relentless campaign of terror waged by the insurgents has affected the way the perceive reality. This is a given. The US military should be more accomodating to this fact; you'd be shaken, too, if you were subjected to what our brave men and women in uniform are. The Iraqis also know that we are trying our best to construct a functional democracy in the region, and they know we have succeeded in this attempt; an Iraqi premier was, indeed, democratically elected. The only task left facing us is how to gradually extend the power of that government, and we are trying to train Iraqi troops to secure the peace. They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances in Iraq, many American troops do hate the hell-hole that is Iraq, and anything associated with it.


what dream world are you living in?


From a completely objective point of view, it's not the same thing. There are 26 000 000 Iraqi citizens currently in Iraq. We have, say, 150 000 US troops in Iraq. Simple math will determine that the life of 1 US soldier is equivalent to the lives of 173 Iraqis.

from a subjective point of view, iraqis mourn their dead as much as we do.

The soldiers are responsible for their own actions. Period.

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

The Iraqis know that many US soldiers aren't right in the head -- the continuous horrors of war have driven them to the brink of insanity. The relentless campaign of terror waged by the insurgents has affected the way the perceive reality. This is a given. The US military should be more accomodating to this fact; you'd be shaken, too, if you were subjected to what our brave men and women in uniform are. The Iraqis also know that we are trying our best to construct a functional democracy in the region, and they know we have succeeded in this attempt; an Iraqi premier was, indeed, democratically elected. The only task left facing us is how to gradually extend the power of that government, and we are trying to train Iraqi troops to secure the peace. They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances in Iraq, many American troops do hate the hell-hole that is Iraq, and anything associated with it.And why the hell is that? It's because our fucking leaders decided to do the war on the cheap and not send enough men. It's because they're not rotating the soldiers out like they're supposed to. It's because they believed their own bullshit and didn't plan for the peace. It's because the fuckheads in office right now acted like these were toy soldiers and video games and not human beings.

And you have the audacity, you have the gall to claim that the military is under attack from liberals? It's your people who have destroyed the military, who have damaged these men and women beyond repair. I will not stand by and allow you to piss on them or on those of us who would protect and honor that military service. You are a despicable human being, and I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.

And now we approach the underlying sentiment of your thread. It's the liberals' fault. I must admit, this thread is a better show than normal. You started off rather reasonable. Didn't get into your normal trolling for a good while.

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

So we should reward him for allowing a war-crime to happen and to not report it? Just because he was protecting his comrades?

Sorry, but accessory to murder, is accessory to murder. No matter how "noble" the motive.

From a completely objective point of view, it's not the same thing. There are 26 000 000 Iraqi citizens currently in Iraq. We have, say, 150 000 US troops in Iraq. Simple math will determine that the life of 1 US soldier is equivalent to the lives of 173 Iraqis.

By simple maths does that mean an African Americans life is worth about 8 times as much as a White American?

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

thats just not the way the law works. soldiers shouldnt be above the law.

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

They disobeyed orders. Plain and simple. This guy gets no reward for being loyal to his treasonous squad.

By simple maths does that mean an African Americans life is worth about 8 times as much as a White American?

His way of thinking is disgusting, a person is a person, regardless of how populous their country/race is...

The Iraqis know that many US soldiers aren't right in the head -- the continuous horrors of war have driven them to the brink of insanity. The relentless campaign of terror waged by the insurgents has affected the way the perceive reality. This is a given. The US military should be more accomodating to this fact; you'd be shaken, too, if you were subjected to what our brave men and women in uniform are. The Iraqis also know that we are trying our best to construct a functional democracy in the region, and they know we have succeeded in this attempt; an Iraqi premier was, indeed, democratically elected. The only task left facing us is how to gradually extend the power of that government, and we are trying to train Iraqi troops to secure the peace. They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances in Iraq, many American troops do hate the hell-hole that is Iraq, and anything associated with it.



From a completely objective point of view, it's not the same thing. There are 26 000 000 Iraqi citizens currently in Iraq. We have, say, 150 000 US troops in Iraq. Simple math will determine that the life of 1 US soldier is equivalent to the lives of 173 Iraqis.

This is the hottest erotic gay short story I have ever read. I'm breaking out a bottle of champagne.

By simple maths does that mean an African Americans life is worth about 8 times as much as a White American?

Bwahaha! I pwn you all now!

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

... if they help hide the crime they should also be punnished.

and Loyalty is fine, but not when it's to break the law.

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age. If you are honorable and dedicated to your squad, doing whatever you can to protect them in a hostile environment, when they are under attack from liberals in America, military lawyers, and Iraqi terrorists, well, that's punishable by 10 years in prison. We need more people like him; he should be encouraged to keep what he saw to himself. We, as a country, should value loyalty, especially in horrifying, gut-wrenching situations such as Iraq. A man was killed -- nonetheless, the soldier should have a clear conscience as long as he was not complicit in the murder. Helping your squard, and, by extension, the army should be lauded, not criticized, and certainly not illegal. The conduct of the military in this matter was disgraceful.
Ah yes. The evil liberals. Cute. Guess what? He pledged to be loyal to the constitution and the laws of America above all else. He vowed to protect ALL americans, not JUST conservatives. He broke the nations laws, and deserves his punishment.
Fuck you, you little piece of shit. Don't you dare. Don't you fucking dare.Breathe, buddy. He isn't worth it.

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.It is called being an accessory. If I did the same thing as him with a group of my friends, do I deserve to be rewarded?

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.

Hutchins assigned each man a role: Bacos and two others would steal a shovel and an AK-47 to plant near the body, while others would go to Gowad's home and pull him out at night, Bacos said. They planned to dig a hole so it would seem Gowad had been burying a bomb when he was killed.

If Gowad was not home, they would carry out their plan on another civilian, Bacos testified. They agreed to lie to military investigators who would come behind them.

"We all said, 'I'm in,' " Bacos said.

At 3 a.m. on April 26, the squad put the plan in action, Bacos said. When they went to Gowad's home, "one of the family members woke up and saw us," Bacos said. "So Corporal [Trent D.] Thomas and Corporal [Marshall L.] Magincalda pointed at the house next door."

He agreed to take part in the murder of an innocent man. He did not just stand and watch, he was involved from the beginning. THAT is a criminal act! Just looking away afterwards does not make him an innocent man. He was an accomplice, and deserves the (very lenient) punishment.

And you have the audacity, you have the gall to claim that the military is under attack from liberals?

I certainly don't think that a US soldier is going to get cheered up by people back home saying that what they are risking their life for is pointless, that we should withdraw, that Iraq is a mess, etc. If the Iraqi bombs and bullets aren't enough of a depressant, a US soldier can look forward to see the endless montage of horrid news stories being spouted from the liberal media. They will get the impression that their task is trivial -- that they are fighting for a lost cause, and that it is best to leave. Yeah, damn straight the military is under attack from liberals.

I wouldn't spit on you...

Thank you for showing some common courtesy. I would never spit on you, either. While I think that you are quite anti-American and a travesty of a human being, I would never do something so offensive. :)

By simple maths does that mean an African Americans life is worth about 8 times as much as a White American?

What do you mean? We're all Americans. If there was a war between the blacks and the whites in this country, however, you would be correct in that assumption.

His way of thinking is disgusting, a person is a person, regardless of how populous their country/race is...

I know I know. It's just I literally fell off my chair laughing when I read that. It's gotta be the most absurd thing I've ever read.

What do you mean? We're all Americans. If there was a war between the blacks and the whites in this country, however, you would be correct in that assumption.

Does that then mean that the life of a tourist in America is worth the lives of about 500 Americans?

Or that each Australian is worth 20 Americans?

Why don't the US soldiers in Iraq count as Americans making the relative ratio 300,000,000 : 26,000,000 meaning an Iraqis life is worth about 15 Americans?

It is called being an accessory. If I did the same thing as him with a group of my friends, do I deserve to be rewarded?

No, because you are not fighting in Iraq. You are not subjected to the gruesome conditions they are constantly exposed to. In Iraq, displaying loyalty to your fellow soldiers should be praised above all else, unless that loyalty leads you to commit a violent crime. This man simply failed to report a crime and attempted to aid his comrades in evading a court-martial. His actions hurt nobody and helped his squad. He should not be blamed for so selfless an action.

Does that then mean that the life of a tourist in America is worth the lives of about 500 Americans?

If all the tourists decided to declare war on America, yes. In a war, the last man standing wins. And the only way the tourists could possibly win the war is by killing 500 Americans for every tourist that dies. It's nothing complex; it's elementary math.

No, because you are not fighting in Iraq. You are not subjected to the gruesome conditions they are constantly exposed to. In Iraq, displaying loyalty to your fellow soldiers should be praised above all else, unless that loyalty leads you to commit a violent crime. This man simply failed to report a crime and attempted to aid his comrades in evading a court-martial. His actions hurt nobody and helped his squad. He should not be blamed for so selfless an action.

It doesn't matter how gruesome the conditions are, murder is murder.

No, because you are not fighting in Iraq. You are not subjected to the gruesome conditions they are constantly exposed to. In Iraq, displaying loyalty to your fellow soldiers should be praised above all else, unless that loyalty leads you to commit a violent crime. This man simply failed to report a crime and attempted to aid his comrades in evading a court-martial. His actions hurt nobody and helped his squad. He should not be blamed for so selfless an action.

Guess what? HE BROKE THE LAW. Not only did he break civilian law, he broke military law which is more strict than civilian law. The military are NOT above the law under ANY circumstances. I don't give a fuck if someone threatened to kill him if he told. He still made his choice and broke the law.

You're one of those people who thinks that My Lai was justified, and that Hugh Thompson is a bad man, aren't you?

No, because you are not fighting in Iraq. You are not subjected to the gruesome conditions they are constantly exposed to. In Iraq, displaying loyalty to your fellow soldiers should be praised above all else, unless that loyalty leads you to commit a violent crime. This man simply failed to report a crime and attempted to aid his comrades in evading a court-martial. His actions hurt nobody and helped his squad. He should not be blamed for so selfless an action.

No. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Read the damned article. He did more than that - he took part in the planning, he was an accessory to the crime, he helped to cover it up voluntarily, and his actions permitted the murder of an innocent man.

It doesn't matter how gruesome the conditions are, murder is murder.

And I'm not attempting to defend the murderers (although I do feel all that is warranted is a discharge). This guy, however, did not kill a soul.

No, because you are not fighting in Iraq. You are not subjected to the gruesome conditions they are constantly exposed to. In Iraq, displaying loyalty to your fellow soldiers should be praised above all else, unless that loyalty leads you to commit a violent crime. This man simply failed to report a crime and attempted to aid his comrades in evading a court-martial. His actions hurt nobody and helped his squad. He should not be blamed for so selfless an action.

its an interesting line to spout but it doesnt fit the facts. it wasnt a spontaneous act of murder in response to something that made them snap, it was premeditated murder where everyone agreed to change the victim if necessary.

he could have refused to go. he could have refused to participate in the planning. he could have said "hey guys this just isnt right". instead he said "im in"

you might want to read gravlen's post giving the details.

if you think about it, he is as guilty as the getaway driver in a bank robbery that goes wrong and someone gets killed. by law, he's as guilty as the shooter.

id like to change my vote, he got off way too lightly. 10 years is the minimum he should have to spend in prison.

And I'm not attempting to defend the murderers (although I do feel all that is warranted is a discharge). This guy, however, did not kill a soul.

They're traitors whose actions place the lives of every single American serviceman in Iraq in increased danger by increasing didtrust of the US Army and giving the Insurgents True Propaganda to rally people with.

And you feel they should just be sacked?

And I'm not attempting to defend the murderers (although I do feel all that is warranted is a discharge). This guy, however, did not kill a soul.

Okay, accessory to murder is accessory to murder.

They broke the law, and when you break the law, you get punished for it, murderers don't walk, neither do the accessories to murder, its very simple.

And I'm not attempting to defend the murderers (although I do feel all that is warranted is a discharge). This guy, however, did not kill a soul.

but he did not tell of the crime. He knew it was going to happen. He had the ability to stop it, or make sure that justice was properly served.

Tell me. If a police officer witnessed a murder, and didn't tell anyone, does he deserve to be punished?

You're one of those people who thinks that My Lai was justified, and that Hugh Thompson is a bad man, aren't you?

The My Lai massacre wasn't justified, and Hugh Thompson is not a bad man. He wasn't particularly loyal to the army, though.

The My Lai massacre wasn't justified, and Hugh Thompson is not a bad man. He wasn't particularly loyal to the army, though.
And was his disloyalty good or bad?

If a police officer witnessed a murder, and didn't tell anyone, does he deserve to be punished?

Yes, because a police officer is not fighting a war. His first priority must be to the safety of all US citizens. As such, he needs to report crimes. A soldier's first priority must be to the welfare of his fellow sodliers. As such, he should help them in whatever way is possible as long as he doesn't hurt someone else in the process.

And was his disloyalty good or bad?

Bad.

Yes, because a police officer is not fighting a war. His first priority must be to the safety of all US citizens. As such, he needs to report crimes. A soldier's first priority must be to the welfare of his fellow sodliers. As such, he should help them in whatever way is possible as long as he doesn't hurt someone else in the process.

They both swear to uphold and protect the laws of the US.

And he did hurt someone else in this process. He helped plan and cover up a murder. I'd say that hurt someone very much.

Yes, because a police officer is not fighting a war. His first priority must be to the safety of all US citizens. As such, he needs to report crimes. A soldier's first priority must be to the welfare of his fellow sodliers. As such, he should help them in whatever way is possible as long as he doesn't hurt someone else in the process.

and thats where these guys stepped over the line. That is why they deserve jailtime.

Bad.

Really? Because the military disagrees with you. Actually, they said that he acted very much properly, and rewarded him for his actions.

Murder is NEVER justified.

Murder is NEVER justified.

Murder is sometimes justified, but not in the case of My Lai. Covering up a murder is justified many more times.

Oh MTAE... you're almost as bad as Jesussaves... I'm having fun laughing at your posts... where do you come up with this shit? :D :D :D

I guess that the military is attempting to squash out loyalty in this modern day and age.

A serviceman should be loyal to his nation, and to the laws that govern him above all else, even his unit.

He broke the law in that he aided a murder.

A soldier's first priority must be to the welfare of his fellow sodliers. As such

Wrong. A soldier's first priority should be his nation.

Was the Iraqi caught digging IEDs, etc? Insurgent?

If he wasn't I'd say they were lenient on the corpsman. Should have been given 25 or so.

Loyalty isn't holding out on murder.

Murder is sometimes justified, but not in the case of My Lai. Covering up a murder is justified many more times.
Murder is never justified. Period. It's against the law. As is covering it up.

Where the hell do you come from?

Murder is never justified. Period. It's against the law. As is covering it up.

Where the hell do you come from?

Correct.

What I think he was referring to was Justifiable homicide (IE I shot the mugger dead)- IE self defense, or excusable homicide (I ran the little turd burglar carjacker over).

Correct.

What I think he was referring to was Justifiable homicide (IE I shot the mugger dead)- IE self defense, or excusable homicide (I ran the little turd burglar carjacker over).

But, of course, premeditated murder ("we are going to drag a guy out of his house and shoot him, or someone else if we can't get him") is NOT justifiable homocide. Although I am sure MTAE thinks he can make a case for it being so.

But, of course, premeditated murder ("we are going to drag a guy out of his house and shoot him, or someone else if we can't get him") is NOT justifiable homocide. Although I am sure MTAE thinks he can make a case for it being so.

Dragging an innocent man out of his house and shooting him is not justified, but understandable. Dragging a terrorist out of his house and shooting him is justified and understandable. However, the soldier did not know that an innocent man was going to get shot -- he didn't think they were going to go through with it.

Dragging an innocent man out of his house and shooting him is not justified, but understandable. No it isn't. Not at all. Cold-blooded burder of a random guy is in no way understandable.


Dragging a terrorist out of his house and shooting him is justified and understandable.
Not in this case - they couldn't prove that the guy they were after even was a terrorist. Extralegal executions is a no-no.

However, the soldier did not know that an innocent man was going to get shot -- he didn't think they were going to go through with it. Yes he did. READ THE GOD-DAMNED ARTICLE! He knew about it and approved of it beforehand.

Dragging an innocent man out of his house and shooting him is not justified, but understandable. Dragging a terrorist out of his house and shooting him is justified and understandable. However, the soldier did not know that an innocent man was going to get shot -- he didn't think they were going to go through with it.

murder is never, under any circumstances, either understandable or justifiable.

They are murderers.

And he aided in a murder. He had the opportunity to come clean, he didn't.

Dragging an innocent man out of his house and shooting him is not justified, but understandable. Dragging a terrorist out of his house and shooting him is justified and understandable. However, the soldier did not know that an innocent man was going to get shot -- he didn't think they were going to go through with it.

Glad to hear that you've given the man a full court hearing. Oh wait.

Dragging an innocent man out of his house and shooting him is not justified, but understandable. Dragging a terrorist out of his house and shooting him is justified and understandable. However, the soldier did not know that an innocent man was going to get shot -- he didn't think they were going to go through with it.

please indicate where in the article, it says the Corpsman did not know an innocent man was going to get shot.

and if he didn't know, why did he think they were not going through with it?

both statements cannot be true, so one has to be a lie.

They know we are not after their oil -- we aren't absconding with oil in the middle of the night.


No we steal the oil both day and night!
Halliburton pumping the oil that’s not even metered! (http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/21/oil_not_even_metered/)

Sorry to go off topic but I just had to point out this fact.

No we steal the oil both day and night!
Halliburton pumping the oil that’s not even metered! (http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/21/oil_not_even_metered/)

Sorry to go off topic but I just had to point out this fact.

We're not stealing it. Do you think we're going to let that oil just sit there? Somebody has to extract it. And I'd appreciate a much more non-biased site than that liberal claptrap.

Edit: I didn't find any mention of this story on the FOX News website. My guess is that it's a bunch of lies or severely distorted facts.

We're not stealing it. Do you think we're going to let that oil just sit there? Somebody has to extract it. And I'd appreciate a much more non-biased site than that liberal claptrap.

Edit: I didn't find any mention of this story on the FOX News website. My guess is that it's a bunch of lies or severely distorted facts.

I enjoy how you were able to dodge almost all the relevent responces to your post and instead decided to beat up on an off topic post.

I take that as an admission of your defeat.


So, anyone else think that Means is just a troll?

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html

For once, I'm not going to criticize you MTAE. I feel that if he did nothing to the person, and merely watched, he did nothing wrong. He probably was horrified by seeing this, and couldn't do anything. Reminds me of the movie: Casulties of War.....

MTAE makes me lol.
I was wondering whether this might be Begoner21's reincarnation? I noticed he started posting regularly around the time Begoner was 'proved' being a troll.

So, anyone else think that Means is just a troll?

I think hes a troll, but who do you think is doing the trolling?

My guess is the same guy who was doing Realamerica or begoner21....

Maybe Nazz, or Congo-Kinshasa?

MTAE makes me lol.
I was wondering whether this might be Begoner21's reincarnation? I noticed he started posting regularly around the time Begoner was 'proved' being a troll.

He makes me lol too, look at my sig ;)



But anyway, yeah, this is the first thread where he has a valid point. Of course, I have no inside information on this one, or any second hand knowlege of it like I usually do, so I can't comment....

For once, I'm not going to criticize you MTAE. I feel that if he did nothing to the person, and merely watched, he did nothing wrong. He probably was horrified by seeing this, and couldn't do anything. Reminds me of the movie: Casulties of War.....

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that he did not simply stand there horrified and watched unable to look away.

And even if that WERE TRUE, he still had the obligation to report it, which he did not. I severely doubt his innocence in this, and even if he were innocent his silence made him complicit

I enjoy how you were able to dodge almost all the relevent responces to your post and instead decided to beat up on an off topic post.

I take that as an admission of your defeat.

That's because all the "relevant" responses were just tired old reiterations of points already mentioned. I don't want to be continuously answering the same things again. I am not defending the murderers, but murder is sometimes justified.

Maybe Nazz, or Congo-Kinshasa?

Yeah, I'm The Nazz, and I'm shouting obscenities at myself. Referring back to page 4 or 5, where The Nazz said:

Fuck you, you little piece of shit. Don't you dare. Don't you fucking dare.

Troll hunts on these forums are almost as bad as witch hunts back in the day. Nobody is safe. :)

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that he did not simply stand there horrified and watched unable to look away.

And even if that WERE TRUE, he still had the obligation to report it, which he did not. I severely doubt his innocence in this, and even if he were innocent his silence made him complicit


Ah, I had no knowlege of that. I only went by what MTAE said.


And to MTAE, Murder can almost never be justified. If someone attacks you, and you kill them, that is the only way I can see a justifiable murder. Also, if someone breaks into your home or steals your property, that is another situation.

I am not defending the murderers, but murder is sometimes justified.

that is an entirely contradictory statement. Murder is NEVER justified, and you have yet to identify a single time when it is.

if someone attacks you, and you kill them, that is the only way I can see a justifiable murder. Also, if someone breaks into your home or steals your property, that is another situation.

Those are, by definition, not murder.

It is justifiable (or defensable) homicide. Not murder.

Yeah, I'm The Nazz, and I'm shouting obscenities at myself. Referring back to page 4 or 5, where The Nazz said:



Troll hunts on these forums are almost as bad as witch hunts back in the day. Nobody is safe. :)

... I've yelled obsenities and argued against myself to disassociate my puppet from me. it's not unheard of...

that is an entirely contradictory statement. Murder is NEVER justified, and you have yet to identify a single time when it is.

Not only that, but he was the one who said we should kill anyone who opposes the United States, and colonize their lands to Americanize them.

Those are, by definition, not murder.

It is justifiable (or defensable) homicide. Not murder.


Actually, thats not true. In the US, if someone breaks into your house, and you kill them, you go to jail. They have to have a weapon on them, or to have attacked you. Otherwise, you are supposed to leave your house, let them take what they want, and leave. You are to hope the police can catch them.


A guy once was broken into every night for months on end. So finally, he went on a trip, and set up a series of booby traps in his house. He killed the guy who was breaking in with the booby traps, and when he returned home, he was tried for man slaughter. He was also convicted.

... I've yelled obsenities and argued against myself to disassociate my puppet from me. it's not unheard of...

Its ok. I talk to myself too.


"Hi Wanderjar!" I say to me.

"Hi self! How are you?"


"Pretty good!"

"Awsome."

Actually, thats not true. In the US, if someone breaks into your house, and you kill them, you go to jail. They have to have a weapon on them, or to have attacked you. Otherwise, you are supposed to leave your house, let them take what they want, and leave. You are to hope the police can catch them.


A guy once was broken into every night for months on end. So finally, he went on a trip, and set up a series of booby traps in his house. He killed the guy who was breaking in with the booby traps, and when he returned home, he was tried for man slaughter. He was also convicted.


Please do not make sweeping statements of "in the US". State laws vary by state. In NY it's perfectly legal to kill an intruder. Additionally most states do not REQUIRE a threat, merely a reasonable belief of a threat.

Unless it's a federal crime, you can not say what is, and is not, illegal "in the us". State laws vary.

Please do not make sweeping statements of "in the US". State laws vary by state. In NY it's perfectly legal to kill an intruder. Additionally most states do not REQUIRE a threat, merely a reasonable belief of a threat.

Unless it's a federal crime, you can not say what is, and is not, illegal "in the us". State laws vary.

I know, but I was under the impression that that was how it was everywhere. My bad.

I know, but I was under the impression that that was how it was everywhere. My bad.

it is entirely a state by state issue. The model penal code (which isn't actually in full the law in any state but is a...well...model) puts forth the reasonableness standard rather than fact standard.

that is an entirely contradictory statement. Murder is NEVER justified, and you have yet to identify a single time when it is.

Let's say you witness a murderer killing somebody. However, you lack sufficient proof to convict him and you know he is going to strike again. What do you do? I'd think that killing him would be an adequate solution.

Let's say you witness a murderer killing somebody. However, you lack sufficient proof to convict him and you know he is going to strike again. What do you do? I'd think that killing him would be an adequate solution.

No, you tell the cops, who will get a warrant, and they will observe him. If he strikes, the Cops will be there.


The US doesn't need vigilantes.

Let's say you witness a murderer killing somebody. However, you lack sufficient proof to convict him and you know he is going to strike again. What do you do? I'd think that killing him would be an adequate solution.

vigilantism is the anathema of ordered society. That scenario would be sufficient to get surveilance on the individual.

Let's say you witness a murderer killing somebody. However, you lack sufficient proof to convict him and you know he is going to strike again. What do you do? I'd think that killing him would be an adequate solution.

as a civilian, not my concern... I will be one aspect of the proof to put him away... It will be up to the cops to get the rest of the evidence. I will do my part by keeping the details intact on what I saw.

That's because all the "relevant" responses were just tired old reiterations of points already mentioned. I don't want to be continuously answering the same things again. I am not defending the murderers, but murder is sometimes justified.

Curious. You haven't responded to a single relevant post I've made, nor adressed any of the points I've made that others have made too. You're quite the BS artist.

...

UNA? Is that you?

Sounds about right.

In light of recent events, I am proud to present MeansToAnEnd with the Wanderjarian War Criminal Award!

Give him a round of applause!

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3963/wanderjarianwarcriminalawardlm9.png

Yeah, I'm The Nazz, and I'm shouting obscenities at myself. Referring back to page 4 or 5, where The Nazz said:



Troll hunts on these forums are almost as bad as witch hunts back in the day. Nobody is safe. :)

That post is what made me believe you are Nazz seeing as how you havent reported him....

In light of recent events, I am proud to present MeansToAnEnd with the Wanderjarian War Criminal Award!

Well, I'm honored. I have so many people to thank, and so little time! Well, first I'd like to thank my mom for her unwavering support. I'd like to thank liberals for pushing me to my current political position. I'd like to thank Bush for being the best US president. Last but not least, I'd like to thank my dog Rufus for excreting in my shoes -- if it had not been for that, I may not have gotten this award!

Well, I'm honored. I have so many people to thank, and so little time! Well, first I'd like to thank my mom for her unwavering support. I'd like to thank liberals for pushing me to my current political position. I'd like to thank Bush for being the best US president. Last but not least, I'd like to thank my dog Rufus for excreting in my shoes -- if it had not been for that, I may not have gotten this award!

(Thanks for taking that so well man, I'm only messing with you ;))

You have worked hard for this! May you defend your title well!

That post is what made me believe you are Nazz seeing as how you havent reported him....

Why, we all make mistakes based on spur-of-the-moment flare-ups. After all, Nazz is only human. He gets angry when someone offers conflicting views and proceeds to yell profanely at them. It's no need to report them to the moderators, and no action will be taken if I do. I attempted to report Greater Trostia for something much worse, and was thwarted in my attempts.

(Thanks for taking that so well man, I'm only messing with you ;))

You have worked hard for this! May you defend your title well!


In addition, you should put your title in your sig!

"Winner of the Wanderjarian War Criminal Award!"

Curious. You haven't responded to a single relevant post I've made, nor adressed any of the points I've made that others have made too. You're quite the BS artist.

...

UNA? Is that you?

you get used to that...in my thread about the daily show, he hijacked it to be about torture (despite having his own thread dedicated to that already), and ignored all of the on topic posts directed at him, even after I pointed them out.

I think hes a troll, but who do you think is doing the trolling?

My guess is the same guy who was doing Realamerica or begoner21....

Maybe Nazz, or Congo-Kinshasa?Heh. I've never had the patience to troll or to use a sockpuppet. Besides, using two personalities to argue against each other is a quick way to get both deated.

That's because all the "relevant" responses were just tired old reiterations of points already mentioned. I don't want to be continuously answering the same things again. I am not defending the murderers, but murder is sometimes justified.

Do you know the meaning of the word oxymoron?

I'd say I'm surprised they didn't get more. The military is notorious for having much more stict punishments than the general populace.

Indeed.

I recall a case several years ago (1995, IIRC) here in Japan in which 3 marines raped a 12 year old girl. They got 10 years in the Japanese courts. The newspaper carried a comment from a US military prosecutor to the effect that they were very lucky to have been tried in the Japanese courts.

Indeed.

I recall a case several years ago (1995, IIRC) here in Japan in which 3 marines raped a 12 year old girl. They got 10 years in the Japanese courts. The newspaper carried a comment from a US military prosecutor to the effect that they were very lucky to have been tried in the Japanese courts.

I remember that incident.

Indeed.

I recall a case several years ago (1995, IIRC) here in Japan in which 3 marines raped a 12 year old girl. They got 10 years in the Japanese courts. The newspaper carried a comment from a US military prosecutor to the effect that they were very lucky to have been tried in the Japanese courts.

No question. I've found that, as a general rule, at atleast 50% on to the average civilian sentence. If you would usually recieve life, expect death.

Heh. I've never had the patience to troll or to use a sockpuppet. Besides, using two personalities to argue against each other is a quick way to get both deated.

No it's not!

He went to jail not because he witnessed a murder, but because he was an accessory to the crime and aided and abetted the murderers by not reporting it and helping to conceal the crime.

It's pretty straightforward.
I agree.

I'm certainly not going to get involved in a capital punishment debate here, but executing seven men for killing one sounds a bit nutty.
I also agree with this statement, but I never support the death penalty.

I agree with the sentence. If he would have come forward at the beginning, would have been better but he didn't so, yes, he needed some sort of punishment. A year is suffient.

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html

So the military is full of a bunch of insecure little girls who are so worried about their reputation that they're handing out atrocious punishments like a year in jail for harmless behavior like murdering people, which is really ok when you do it because you want to be just like your friends? Is that what you're saying?

What end is it that you're a means to, because right now they only end I can see you reaching is getting severly medicated.

So the military is full of a bunch of insecure little girls who are so worried about their reputation that they're handing out atrocious punishments like a year in jail for harmless behavior like murdering people, which is really ok when you do it because you want to be just like your friends? Is that what you're saying?

What end is it that you're a means to, because right now they only end I can see you reaching is getting severly medicated.

Why do you think he won the Wanderjarian War Criminal Award?

Some things I may agree with you but this isn't one of them. two wrongs don't make a right. However, if you are in fear of your life, you have the right to defend yourself by any and all means. If you are not in danger of losing your life but you witness whatever, you should report it to the proper law enforcement agency and allow the judicial system to take its course.

I am for capital Punishment

harmless behavior like murdering people

He had no hand in the murder -- you're advocating guilt by refusal to report a crime and helping cover it up. Sure, that might work well in the civilian world, but Iraq's not New York. Iraq is a bloodbath -- one Iraqi grandfather plus or minus isn't going to make much difference, and it sure as hell isn't going to make as much difference as plus or minus one US soldier. This man was an exemplary soldier who declined the offer to kill a man, and, after learning that his squad had killed somebody, loyally helped his squad cover it up. That is not only harmless, but extremely correct behavior -- he did nothing wrong and then proceeded to help his squad. The military lawyers are like vultures preying on those who are honorable and loyal, leaving only those with no sense of duty to remain. It disgusts me.

*Sigh* Have you placed me on ignore or something? Because you're repeating the faulty premise over and over. Please read the article again? Pretty please, with sugar on the top?

He had no hand in the murder -- you're advocating guilt by refusal to report a crime and helping cover it up.
He took part in planning it before they went out that day. That makes him an accomplice.

You're making me repeat myself here...

Sure, that might work well in the civilian world, but Iraq's not New York.
No, but the soldiers are still subject to military law. Break it and be punished.

Iraq is a bloodbath -- one Iraqi grandfather plus or minus isn't going to make much difference, and it sure as hell isn't going to make as much difference as plus or minus one US soldier.
Complete bullshit!

This man was an exemplary soldier who declined the offer to kill a man, and, after learning that his squad had killed somebody, loyally helped his squad cover it up. That is not only harmless, but extremely correct behavior -- he did nothing wrong and then proceeded to help his squad.
No. No. NO! NO!

He didn't "decline" an offer - he got second thoughts yes, and he said "don't kill the guy", but he did nothing to stop it! NOTHING! He simply looked away. That is damnable behaviour, not exemplary. Neither is it harmless - it is dangerous, disgusting, harmfull and most importantly, CRIMINAL.

The military lawyers are like vultures preying on those who are honorable and loyal, leaving only those with no sense of duty to remain. It disgusts me.
Again, complete bullshit. The soldiers all failed in their duty to the country, the military, and their brothers in arms.

You are blind, you refuse to open your eyes, and your devaluation of human life disgust me. However, since you refuse to debate this issue (or are incapable), we'll call it a day.

I can't be bothered...

*Sigh* Have you placed me on ignore or something? Because you're repeating the faulty premise over and over. Please read the article again? Pretty please, with sugar on the top?


He took part in planning it before they went out that day. That makes him an accomplice.

You're making me repeat myself here...

No, but the soldiers are still subject to military law. Break it and be punished.

Complete bullshit!

No. No. NO! NO!

He didn't "decline" an offer - he got second thoughts yes, and he said "don't kill the guy", but he did nothing to stop it! NOTHING! He simply looked away. That is damnable behaviour, not exemplary. Neither is it harmless - it is dangerous, disgusting, harmfull and most importantly, CRIMINAL.

Again, complete bullshit. The soldiers all failed in their duty to the country, the military, and their brothers in arms.

You are blind, you refuse to open your eyes, and your devaluation of human life disgust me. However, since you refuse to debate this issue (or are incapable), we'll call it a day.

I can't be bothered...

what part of "troll" dont you understand? he wont answer you because it would ruin his game. he is now trying to catch a new fish with the same bait. he is not interested in debate, only in making other people lose their temper.

So the military is full of a bunch of insecure little girls who are so worried about their reputation that they're handing out atrocious punishments like a year in jail for harmless behavior like murdering people, which is really ok when you do it because you want to be just like your friends? Is that what you're saying?

What end is it that you're a means to, because right now they only end I can see you reaching is getting severly medicated.

You for obvious reasons, must have some how misinterpreted. He did not commit murder. He witnessed and failed to report it. He worked out a plea bargain. He is testifying against his comrades in return for leniency. I do feel a year is appropriate in return for him testifying.

Heh. I've never had the patience to troll or to use a sockpuppet. Besides, using two personalities to argue against each other is a quick way to get both deated.

No it's not!


LOL!

what part of "troll" dont you understand? he wont answer you because it would ruin his game. he is now trying to catch a new fish with the same bait. he is not interested in debate, only in making other people lose their temper.

:(

You're right, of course you are... He is a troll, and I should treat him like the troll that he is. Thanks for the wake-up call..

one Iraqi grandfather plus or minus isn't going to make much difference, and it sure as hell isn't going to make as much difference as plus or minus one US soldier.
Quit trying to play God.......it is totally unbecoming of you.

you're advocating guilt by refusal to report a crime and helping cover it up.

Well...yes.

Thank you for admitting he helped cover it up. And under the UCMJ covering up a crime...is a crime. And since you said he helped cover up a crime, and helping cover up a crime is in itself a crime, he committed a crime. And since he committed a crime, he gets punished for it.

and, after learning that his squad had killed somebody, loyally helped his squad cover it up.

he did nothing wrong

By your own admission (twice) he helped cover up a murder. That is illegal.

Well...yes.

Thank you for admitting he helped cover it up. And under the UCMJ covering up a crime...is a crime. And since you said he helped cover up a crime, and helping cover up a crime is in itself a crime, he committed a crime. And since he committed a crime, he gets punished for it.
It is a crime that you have to explain that to MTAE. :D

Well...yes.

Thank you for admitting he helped cover it up. And under the UCMJ covering up a crime...is a crime. And since you said he helped cover up a crime, and helping cover up a crime is in itself a crime, he committed a crime. And since he committed a crime, he gets punished for it.

stop using that "reason" and "logic" stuff in a MTAE thread...you know he have rules against that;)

Well...yes.

Thank you for admitting he helped cover it up. And under the UCMJ covering up a crime...is a crime. And since you said he helped cover up a crime, and helping cover up a crime is in itself a crime, he committed a crime. And since he committed a crime, he gets punished for it.





By your own admission (twice) he helped cover up a murder. That is illegal.

Would it still be illegal if the soldier who covered up the crime is a very nice person who takes his grandmother to the grocery store when home on leave?

By your own admission (twice) he helped cover up a murder. That is illegal.

I will stipulate that his actions were illegal. However, his actions also happened to be correct. For example, in some backward Arab countries, honor killings, where you kill a member of your family that was raped, are OK. Does that make them right? No. Similarly, in some backward Arab countries, converting to Christianity can get you beheaded. Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. The same principle applies here.

I will stipulate that his actions were illegal. However, his actions also happened to be correct. For example, in some backward Arab countries, honor killings, where you kill a member of your family that was raped, are OK. Does that make them right? No. Similarly, in some backward Arab countries, converting to Christianity can get you beheaded. Is it illegal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. The same principle applies here.

Must... not... respond... to... troll!

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8408/abcd43a50b90f5dadef3c5a5ee3af05afb5.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abcd43a50b90f5dadef3c5a5ee3af05afb5.jpg)

Aaaaah... Help is on the way.

Troll hunts on these forums are almost as bad as witch hunts back in the day. Nobody is safe.
Trolls aren't safe.
And now run, for your bridge is already on fire...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/PitchforkTorch.gifhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Trollbaby.jpg

Must... not... respond... to... troll!

So you keep badgering me to respond to your posts, and when I finally get around to it, you are at a loss for a repartee? I'll assume that you can't stand the proverbial heat. :)

Now, I know that this guy's death is horrendous and all, but you have to be careful where you assign the blame. This soldier has been thrust in jail solely because of the current political landscape, in which the army is running amok with punishments in an attempt to appease anti-war critics who claim that the army is too heavy-handed and that there is inadequate judicial oversight of the military. They are taking this crusade for justice much too far. The man was simply being loyal to his squad and he took no hand in the execution. Why is he going to jail? Do you feel his punishment has been correct (poll coming)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/us/07abuse.html

That is absolutley no reason what so ever to allow a war crime. They should ALL be executed.

So you keep badgering me to respond to your posts, and when I finally get around to it, you are at a loss for a repartee? I'll assume that you can't stand the proverbial heat. :)

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0029.gif
Well, you see - you didn't get around to responding to my post, you responded to something completely different. So you're not, as it were, bringing any heat... Well, except maybe hot air. You're full of something, that's for sure :)

You are a fool http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/character/character0094.gif

And you're still a troll, so I couldn't care less anymore. But since you claimed I badgered you, I had to post this:
http://www.badger.org.uk/index_files/Badger%20Badge.jpg

It's so cuuute :D

He took part in planning it before they went out that day. That makes him an accomplice.

False. He took part in the planning of a plot that involved killing a terrorist -- I certainly see nothing wrong with that; if anything, it is commendable. However, other members of his squad concocted a less "effective" plan. In the second plot, the soldier took no part in the planning or the execution.

No, but the soldiers are still subject to military law. Break it and be punished.

Again, you're completely missing my point. I am not asserting that his actions were legal; they weren't. Nonetheless, he does not deserve his punishment. If the punishment for a stealing a cookie from the cookie jar was execution, I would similarly say that execution was not deserved by the cookie thief.

False. He took part in the planning of a plot that involved killing a terrorist -- I certainly see nothing wrong with that; if anything, it is commendable. However, other members of his squad concocted a less "effective" plan. In the second plot, the soldier took no part in the planning or the execution.



Again, you're completely missing my point. I am not asserting that his actions were legal; they weren't. Nonetheless, he does not deserve his punishment. If the punishment for a stealing a cookie from the cookie jar was execution, I would similarly say that execution was not deserved by the cookie thief.
Nobody is missing your point--we're saying that your point is nothing more than an apology for barbarism. There's a difference.

Aaaaw, did you decide to play nice? Well aren't you as cute as a badger! :p

It's about frickin' time - though you're wrong again. I'll highlight your errors:
False. He took part in the planning of a plot that involved killing a terrorist -- I certainly see nothing wrong with that; if anything, it is commendable. However, other members of his squad concocted a less "effective" plan. In the second plot, the soldier took no part in the planning or the execution.
Let's look at the articles, shall we?
Bacos haltingly told the court that the squad of eight servicemen was on ambush patrol when their leader gathered them under a tree in a palm grove and said he had a plan. Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III wanted to kill an Iraqi named Saleh Gowad, who Hutchins thought was an insurgent, Bacos said. Gowad had been detained and released three times, Bacos testified, and Hutchins "was mad that we kept letting him go."

Hutchins assigned each man a role: Bacos and two others would steal a shovel and an AK-47 to plant near the body, while others would go to Gowad's home and pull him out at night, Bacos said. They planned to dig a hole so it would seem Gowad had been burying a bomb when he was killed.

If Gowad was not home, they would carry out their plan on another civilian, Bacos testified. They agreed to lie to military investigators who would come behind them.

"We all said, 'I'm in,' " Bacos said.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600132.html)

Alternatively:
Bacos testified that the squad entered Hamdania on April 26 while searching for a known insurgent who had been captured three times, then released. Squad leader Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins was "just mad that we kept letting him go and he was a known terrorist," Bacos said.

The group approached a house where the insurgent was believed to be hiding, but when someone inside woke up, the Marines instead went to another home and grabbed Awad, according to the testimony.

Bacos said the squad had intended to get someone else if they did not capture the insurgent, then stage a firefight to make it appear they had found an Iraqi planting a roadside bomb.
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218181,00.html)

See the highlighted parts? He knew that if they didn't kill Gowad (a suspected insurgent/terrorist mind you) then they would kill another. So he took part in the plan to murder Gowad or someone else picked randomly. That's the first part of his criminal actions. The second is his failure to act to stop the murder. The third is his failure to report the incident.

I change my mind - the sailor got off too lightly.

Again, you're completely missing my point. I am not asserting that his actions were legal; they weren't. Nonetheless, he does not deserve his punishment. If the punishment for a stealing a cookie from the cookie jar was execution, I would similarly say that execution was not deserved by the cookie thief.

See what Nazz said...
While I agree with your thoughts on the punishment for the cookie-thief, your analogy does not hold up here. He got off with a year in jail for conspiracy, kidnapping and murder.

Having looked at what you said, Gravlen, I agree--the guy got off too lightly. I didn't realize his level of involvement or the level of planning that went into this murder.

MTAE are you a mafioso?
You sure think as one...

And if they shoot someone, they should get punished. If they see someone getting shot but do not participate in the murder, they should not be punished. If they show loyalty and dedication to their squard, they should be rewarded.
Thats not what happened here ... he not only witnessed it but he covered it up for months

It is that LAST part for which he is and should be in trouble for

I think I'd need to see the punishment the actual killers receive. I think one year is getting off easily; the original figure of ten was more just.

I think I'd need to see the punishment the actual killers receive. I think one year is getting off easily; the original figure of ten was more just.

They'll most likely face the death penalty.