NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/murder_marines_fool_drone/

US Marines spoofed drone to cover up murder, court told
Thermal-imagery pantomime
By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Thursday 22nd March 2007 14:05 GMT

US Marines in Iraq staged an elaborate fake gunfight to foil an overhead surveillance drone and cover up a murder, according to court testimony.

Wired reports that the Marines successfully spoofed infrared imagery, producing the appearance of a legitimate combat engagement. Only a surprise confession by a Navy medic (or "corpsman") attached to the unit led to the true events being uncovered.

Investigations by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and resulting court-martials have been underway since the incident took place in April last year. Several Marines have joined naval corpsman Melson Bacos in testifying against their comrades as part of plea bargains for reduced sentences.

According to court testimony and reports, a Marine squad led by Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins III deliberately set out to kill an insurgent named Saleh Gowad, who had previously been captured and released several times. Failing to find him, they randomly seized disabled ex-policeman Hashim Awad from his home as he slept.

The Marines cuffed Awad and took him to a nearby bomb crater. At this point the drone approached for its first pass overhead. One of the group moved forward and dug a hole at the crater, while the others posed with Awad behind a wall. The recorded thermal imagery from the aircraft seemed to show troops watching an insurgent digging by the road, perhaps to place a bomb.

After the drone had passed, the group moved Awad forward to the hole. But at this point the surveillance platform returned, so one of the Marines wrapped himself around Awad so as to create a single thermal signature, disguising the captive's presence.

They then moved in and put the bound Awad in the hole. A stolen AK47 was fired from that location so as to leave spent cartridges, then wiped off and Awad's fingerprints put on it. Sergeant Hutchins then called his superiors for permission to open fire on a bomb-planting insurgent and Awad was shot repeatedly in the head by two of the Marines as he lay bound, according to testimony from Bacos.

"Congratulations gents, we just got away with murder," Hutchins is reported as saying. Bacos later claimed that he had objected, but was told by a Marine to "quit being a pussy".

Imagery from the drone was shown to investigators afterwards, when Awad's family complained to their sheikh about the killing. The surveillance footage apparently convinced the NCIS agents entirely, such that they believed they were dealing with a "good shoot". They were apparently flabbergasted when Bacos spontaneously confessed.

Hutchins has refused to plead guilty. The court-martials continue.

wow! That'll work alright....and I bet the 'excitement' must have just been overwhelming huh?

fuckwits.

Plea bargins my ass. They all need to be executed.

They deserve a trial but that's about it. If guilty then death is also what they deserve.

They deserve a trial but that's about it. If guilty then death is also what they deserve.

When exactly was the last time the US military handed down a death sentence on its soldiers for murdering not-well connected, non-Americans? I very much doubt that they'd get anything more serious than "Oh well, bad mistake ha ha. Don't do it again."

Actually punishing their soldiers with equivalent sentences would mean acknowledging that stuff like this happens and that they'd be tough on it. Which they aren't. Against criminals in their ranks, the US military is about as tough as a wet paper bag.

When exactly was the last time the US military handed down a death sentence on its soldiers for murdering not-well connected, non-Americans? I very much doubt that they'd get anything more serious than "Oh well, bad mistake ha ha. Don't do it again."

Actually punishing their soldiers with equivalent sentences would mean acknowledging that stuff like this happens and that they'd be tough on it. Which they aren't. Against criminals in their ranks, the US military is about as tough as a wet paper bag.

And that is very, very unfortunate. And they were Marines not soldiers.

And that is very, very unfortunate. And they were Marines not soldiers.

Err... Marines ARE soldiers. They're not infantry. They are soldiers.

And they were Marines not soldiers.
My God, you are a piece of work.

In any case, these men should be put on trial and if found guilty given an appropriate sentence, but that won't happen.

Plea bargins my ass. They all need to be executed.

They deserve a trial but that's about it. If guilty then death is also what they deserve.

Execution is the easy way out.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/murder_marines_fool_drone/



wow! That'll work alright....and I bet the 'excitement' must have just been overwhelming huh?

fuckwits.Not that I approve in any way of that kind of activity, but what kind of stupid heading is "murder_marines_fool_drone"?

Err... Marines ARE soldiers. They're not infantry. They are soldiers.

Ask anyone in the US military. There is a difference.

Not that I approve in any way of that kind of activity, but what kind of stupid heading is "murder_marines_fool_drone"?

The kind I'd expect from the Register. :rolleyes:

The kind I'd expect from the Register. :rolleyes:

wow....sour grapes or what?

Plea bargins my ass. They all need to be executed.

All that will accomplish is more death. Toss them in jail for life. Solitary confinement for each of them, complete with a lack of contact with the jailers feeding them.

EDIT: Presuming they're guilty, of course. If they're innocent, then let nothing be done to them. I doubt they are innocent, but that doesn't mean we need to prejudge.

And that is very, very unfortunate. And they were Marines not soldiers.

That's not a hairdryer! That's a "phillip's" :rolleyes:

Well she-at. I'm surprised by this.


I didn't think US soldiers were intelligent enough to come up with such an abhorrent, scheming, underhanded, murderous and frankly evil plan as this.

I was wrong.


Kudos.

When exactly was the last time the US military handed down a death sentence on its soldiers for murdering not-well connected, non-Americans? I very much doubt that they'd get anything more serious than "Oh well, bad mistake ha ha. Don't do it again."

Actually punishing their soldiers with equivalent sentences would mean acknowledging that stuff like this happens and that they'd be tough on it. Which they aren't. Against criminals in their ranks, the US military is about as tough as a wet paper bag.

Yeah, the Sergeant might get jail time, but every one else is probably just getting a dishonorable discharge and getting sent home.

Presuming they're guilty, of course. If they're innocent, then let nothing be done to them. I doubt they are innocent, but that doesn't mean we need to prejudge.
Their chance of being actually innocent is lower than that of the court actually meting out real justice.

And that is very, very unfortunate. And they were Marines not Army soldiers.

yes, theres a huge difference between marines and the regular infantry. huge difference.

"according to court testimony"...

And jackasses are already braying as if its been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Someone testified this is what happened,so it must be completely true. :rolleyes:

"according to court testimony"...

And jackasses are already braying as if its been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Someone testified this is what happened,so it must be completely true. :rolleyes:

yeah, i was going to point that out. last week we were saying how falsifiable military courts are and now this...

:p

yeah, i was going to point that out. last week we were saying how falsifiable military courts are and now this...

:p

They shouldnt even bother-NSG is so chock full of experts,they could solve every crime and mystery right in here.

Their chance of being actually innocent is lower than that of the court actually meting out real justice.

That doesn't matter. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a buzz phrase in my book: it's how you treat every case, period.

Alright, it's kinda thread jacking but a quick run down for everyone who isn't smart.:p soldier=army, airman=airforce, sailor=navy, Marine=Marine Corps. Now try to talk a little less.

Alright, it's kinda thread jacking but a quick run down for everyone who isn't smart.:p soldier=army, airman=airforce, sailor=navy, Marine=Marine Corps. Now try to talk a little less.

Please forgive the masses. They usually use the more common definitions of words to refer to various subjects, such as calling all members of the military soldiers even if the military itself does not do that.

Alright, it's kinda thread jacking but a quick run down for everyone who isn't smart.:p soldier=army, airman=airforce, sailor=navy, Marine=Marine Corps. Now try to talk a little less.

Univited scum sort of covers a lot without getting technical, I find.

Univited scum sort of covers a lot without getting technical, I find.

Yeah, w/o seeing anything for yourself you might think that. I don't hold it against you. You're just impressionable.

wow....sour grapes or what?

Strange definition of "sour grapes" you've got there.

Univited scum sort of covers a lot without getting technical, I find.

Scum? Yeah...okay, trollish wonder. :rolleyes:

Yeah, w/o seeing anything for yourself you might think that. I don't hold it against you. You're just impressionable.

What, and you're not? Hah!

That said, the entire U.S. military is not "uninvited scum." Dismissing such a large organization comprised of millions of people is not wise or rational.

Yeah, w/o seeing anything for yourself you might think that. I don't hold it against you. You're just impressionable.

Yes, tens of thousands of dead do tend to make quite an impression on me.

During any conflict, it would be unreasonable to suggest that all of one side or the others military are of a certain inclination. Some are probably decent people just trying to get through. However, when the cause that they represent is evil, one must put aside such considerations, because they are part of it, and to stop it, one must stop them too. So "uninvited scum" it must be. Thats whats meant by the "horror of war" I think.

Scum? Yeah...okay, trollish wonder.

No problem. See you next thread some minority asks to get the boot taken off their neck and you have to whine about them.

Yes, tens of thousands of dead do tend to make quite an impression on me.

During any conflict, it would be unreasonable to suggest that all of one side or the others military are of a certain inclination. Some are probably decent people just trying to get through. However, when the cause that they represent is evil, one must put aside such considerations, because they are part of it, and to stop it, one must stop them too. So "uninvited scum" it must be. Thats whats meant by the "horror of war" I think.
Excuse me? I wouldn't call the cause they fight for evil by any extent, especially given that good and evil are mere concepts anyway.

The basic cause is one of preventing terrorism and ensuring freedom, both noble causes regardless of what is actually occurring. To call the U.S. military evil is simply ridiculous.

Excuse me? I wouldn't call the cause they fight for evil by any extent, especially given that good and evil are mere concepts anyway.

The basic cause is one of preventing terrorism and ensuring freedom, both noble causes regardless of what is actually occurring. To call the U.S. military evil is simply ridiculous.


The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. It has not provided freedom for the people of Iraq, nor was that its purpose. Should a war ensue against Iran it will not be to stop "terrorism" or to free the "iranian" people either. The intent of some in the US can be seen in their deeds from latin America to the middle east. I think it high time we call it it what it is. Evil.

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism.

Yeah, probably has. But where? ;)

The intent of some in the US can be seen in their deeds from latin America to the middle east. I think it high time we call it it what it is. Evil.

Yes, yes, US...Great Satan. US are teh EBIL!!!1one Give it a rest already. :rolleyes:

Strange definition of "sour grapes" you've got there.

Well you seemed to be familiar with el reg...and would therefore know that they make statements like that for nearly all their stories...

Maybe sour grapes is the wrong expression...I thought it was apt (I'm not very good with sayings I admit, what with English not being my first language)...

Yes, tens of thousands of dead do tend to make quite an impression on me.

During any conflict, it would be unreasonable to suggest that all of one side or the others military are of a certain inclination. Some are probably decent people just trying to get through. However, when the cause that they represent is evil, one must put aside such considerations, because they are part of it, and to stop it, one must stop them too. So "uninvited scum" it must be. Thats whats meant by the "horror of war" I think.

Go to iraq, you'd find that those uninvited scum are foreign terrorists and al-qaeda. Go to afghanistan, you'd find that those uninvited scum are the taleban. Emphasis on scum.

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. It has not provided freedom for the people of Iraq, nor was that its purpose. Should a war ensue against Iran it will not be to stop "terrorism" or to free the "iranian" people either. The intent of some in the US can be seen in their deeds from latin America to the middle east. I think it high time we call it it what it is. Evil.

Hehe, you're a funny troll.

Yeah, probably has. But where? ;)


In Iraq. Dur. Which would make the US an enabler of terrorism. But that's hardly surprising given their track record of who they support.

Go to iraq, you'd find that those uninvited scum are foreign terrorists and al-qaeda. Go to afghanistan, you'd find that those uninvited scum are the taleban. Emphasis on scum.


And what would you call people wearing US military uniform grabbing random people and killing them just because they were too lazy to do their jobs hmm?

And what of the utter lack of spine to prosecute these criminals in the US military?

"according to court testimony"...

And jackasses are already braying as if its been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Someone testified this is what happened,so it must be completely true. :rolleyes:

Precedent indicates that such incidents are more likely to be true than not. Remember a certain slaughtering of some 20 odd unarmed Iraqis by US soldiers? How many chickenhawks came out clamoring "Oh, it's a combat situation, no foul there" or "that two year old must have had an AK trained on them"?

In fact, I would bet good money that a great deal more crimes are being committed by US troops in Iraq than is reported.

Yeah, probably has. But where? ;)

Oh yes, the old "American soil has not been the target of terrorist attacks since 9-11" excuse that Busheviks like you accept as mantra for justifying the boondoggle in Iraq.

Yes, yes, US...Great Satan. US are teh EBIL!!!1one Give it a rest already. :rolleyes:

And so instead of going for a sensible moderate viewpoint we'll swing to the other extreme end which is:

America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah)

Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Popeye, FUCK YEAH!
Democrats, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books

And what would you call people wearing US military uniform grabbing random people and killing them just because they were too lazy to do their jobs hmm?

And what of the utter lack of spine to prosecute these criminals in the US military?

I would calm them, if found guilty, not worthy of the dirt that they stand on. They are a disgrace not only to their uniform but to humanity. However they don't do it out of laziness. They allow the stresses of war to push them to far and weak leadership leads to a feeling of acceptance of those acts. I agree with you that prosecution does not go far enough. Now lets just try to find a way to change that.

In fact, I would bet good money that a great deal more crimes are being committed by US troops in Iraq than is reported.

Every discharge of a weapon is investigated thoroughly. You are wrong.

Every discharge of a weapon is investigated thoroughly. You are wrong.

If every discharge was as thoroughly investigated as the CPA's budgetary allocation and spending, that's hardly reassuring.

If every discharge was as thoroughly investigated as the CPA's budgetary allocation and spending, that's hardly reassuring.

Uhhhhh, no.

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. It has not provided freedom for the people of Iraq, nor was that its purpose.
-snip-
I think it high time we call it it what it is. Evil.

I'm not sure you know this since you only see what a bunch of biased news agencies show you and tell you....but the Iraqi people are free now no matter what the world press calls it and even they will tell you . But what the hell do I know about what they think I was only over there and worked with the Iraqis on a day to day basis.

Tell you what you take your whiney butt over there and experience the BS you are shoveling first hand and then come back and give me your opinion and I may just listen to what you have to say.


thank you and have a great day.

All that will accomplish is more death. Toss them in jail for life. Solitary confinement for each of them, complete with a lack of contact with the jailers feeding them.

EDIT: Presuming they're guilty, of course. If they're innocent, then let nothing be done to them. I doubt they are innocent, but that doesn't mean we need to prejudge.
Normally I don't support death, but these guys are scum and we must set an example to deter further cases like this. That is, unless they're all a bunch of complete fucktards who think they are invincible and have nothing to fear from retribution by their superiors.

I'm not saying they should be shot or hanged. Something simple, quick, cheap and not overly painful or dramatic.

I'm not sure you know this since you only see what a bunch of biased news agencies show you and tell you....but the Iraqi people are free now no matter what the world press calls it and even they will tell you . But what the hell do I know about what they think I was only over there and worked with the Iraqis on a day to day basis.

Tell you what you take your whiney butt over there and experience the BS you are shoveling first hand and then come back and give me your opinion and I may just listen to what you have to say.


"experience the BS" I'm shovelling first hand would entail me illegally invading a country, being responsible for over a hundred thousand dead, unleashing a civil conflict, threatening my new "neighbours", as well as simultaneously fucking up/corruptly leeching off the "reconstruction" effort while maintaining a smug white-toothed smile of moral superiority. I confess thats a challenge that I'm not able to meet.

I'd be glad to take a few pot shots at some members of the occupying force though, as you never know....I might get lucky.

Go to iraq, you'd find that those uninvited scum are foreign terrorists and al-qaeda. ;):

O some of them are.

Yeah, probably has. But where? ;):

O Europe and the rest of the world. "abroad" where the fat-assed, cheese-with-everything smug stars and stripes wavers generally don't have to worry about.


Yes, yes, US...Great Satan. US are teh EBIL!!!1one Give it a rest already.

Awww. I'm sowwy. Is my bringing up the facts upsetting you? I better not mention the old school for nun-rapers down in Fort Benning, that'll give you a fit.

The invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism. It has not provided freedom for the people of Iraq, nor was that its purpose. Should a war ensue against Iran it will not be to stop "terrorism" or to free the "iranian" people either. The intent of some in the US can be seen in their deeds from latin America to the middle east. I think it high time we call it it what it is. Evil.
I won't disagree with you on just how badly everything has been screwed up in Iraq. I've hated that war from the start. It should never have been fought.

But evil is just a philisophical concept. The American military has never been evil nor has the American government; rather, the military has merely been a tool for power for the American government. Every other government does it as well. It's a simple facet of human nature, really.

Normally I don't support death, but these guys are scum and we must set an example to deter further cases like this. That is, unless they're all a bunch of complete fucktards who think they are invincible and have nothing to fear from retribution by their superiors.

I'm not saying they should be shot or hanged. Something simple, quick, cheap and not overly painful or dramatic.

Doesn't matter. We do not sink to the level of murdering no matter what anyone has done. I don't care what someone does, I would never support the death penalty. The instant you cross that line you become one of them and I personally would not have any of it.

Wow. That's an awfully elaborate deception to kill one random guy for sport, if true.. hope they get to the bottom of it and find out what happened.

I would calm them, if found guilty, not worthy of the dirt that they stand on. They are a disgrace not only to their uniform but to humanity. However they don't do it out of laziness. They allow the stresses of war to push them to far and weak leadership leads to a feeling of acceptance of those acts.

Ok. Fine. Job stresses. Doesn't excuse it though.


I agree with you that prosecution does not go far enough. Now lets just try to find a way to change that.

It's not just the prosecution. It's the attitude of the senior military leadership as well. As how to change that, what exactly do you propose hmm? The way I see it, it'll stay the way it is unless there's a complete and thorough reform of the military officer corps all the way up to the policy makers.

Every discharge of a weapon is investigated thoroughly. You are wrong.

I seem to remember a number of instances where bullshit stories covering mass murder were accepted as truth until the media blew the whistle on them. Seems like it's not so thorough hmm?

Precedent indicates that such incidents are more likely to be true than not. Remember a certain slaughtering of some 20 odd unarmed Iraqis by US soldiers? How many chickenhawks came out clamoring "Oh, it's a combat situation, no foul there" or "that two year old must have had an AK trained on them"?

In fact, I would bet good money that a great deal more crimes are being committed by US troops in Iraq than is reported.

Sure. No amount of proof would ever convince you otherwise when thats clearly what you so desperately want to believe.

Wow. That's an awfully elaborate deception to kill one random guy for sport, if true.. hope they get to the bottom of it and find out what happened.

You're chest deep in a bog of folks that want US soldiers to be painted bad-guys so badly,the bile bubbles out of their mouths when they talk.

Sure. No amount of proof would ever convince you otherwise when thats clearly what you so desperately want to believe.

I'd be quiet if I were you, since you're both guilty of bias, be it for the soldier's innocence or guilt.

Let the courts decide if they did the crime or not. And if they did, let them be locked up for life. Anything else would either be sinking to their level(the death penalty) or not punishment enough. Injustices performed by a nation's military ought not to be tolorated under any circumstances.

I won't disagree with you on just how badly everything has been screwed up in Iraq. I've hated that war from the start. It should never have been fought.

But evil is just a philisophical concept. The American military has never been evil nor has the American government; rather, the military has merely been a tool for power for the American government. Every other government does it as well. It's a simple facet of human nature, really.


Lacking the education to give another title to the export and exertion of American power to the detriment of others, I call it "evil". You may call it what you will.

Sure. No amount of proof would ever convince you otherwise when thats clearly what you so desperately want to believe.

Really now? There is precedent for this, and it's not all that impressive for the US. Criminals pardoned. Taps on the wrist for murder one. Power abuse throughout the structure getting the nudge, nudge, wink, wink treatment. The list goes on.

Is it that you so desperately want to believe that the US military is spineless when it comes to prosecuting it's own. That such events are super rare incidents that wouldn't happen except in extraordinary circumstances?

I apply the same rule to military reports of abuse the same I do to rape. For every one reported, quite a few more go unreported, or if they are, hushed down and covered up, the perps getting laughable sentences.

You're chest deep in a bog of folks that want US soldiers to be painted bad-guys so badly,the bile bubbles out of their mouths when they talk.

That is the product of your victim complex thinking, no more, no less.

Additionally, do you deny the historical precedent of practically non-existent sentences the US military passes down on its criminals?

You're chest deep in a bog of folks that want US soldiers to be painted bad-guys so badly,the bile bubbles out of their mouths when they talk.

Hmmm not the case as far as I am concerned. I don't think my brother is a 'bad guy' for example.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/murder_marines_fool_drone/



wow! That'll work alright....and I bet the 'excitement' must have just been overwhelming huh?

fuckwits.

These idiots should be shot in the head at the same time.

god, I hate the U.S., as soon as I'm old enough I'm going to move to Japan or something. I have a friend who sees the war as black and white: We go in, liberate the iraq people, kill the insurgents, set up a gov. I try to tell him that the whole war is shades of gray, that the wholeworld is shades of gray, but he dosen't listen

These idiots should be shot in the head at the same time.

nah. death is too easy. if they are indeed found guilty...

It maybe all news to you hear in America but there are more stories related to this kind of atrocities committed by American army everyday in Iraq. He (Bush) should be put in a trial in The Hague for his actions? What makes Bush different then any other leader in the world? There is a saying, "Bush killed more Iraqis, then Saddam could have ever dreamt of" This war being played out as "evil versus good" that this illegal war is supposed to be a just war is all lies and the whole world knows it and more Americans are catching up. America did this to Iraq and yet I hear that Saddam created this civil war, first of all, you don't blame a dead man for events that are occurring right now, secondly, both Shia and Sunnis are reminiscing the good old time when Iraq had police and an army, where everybody abide the law and Saddam reigned. Saddam might have stirred some sectarian tension but he was the cap and as America took out the cap, they let the genie out of the bottle (Aladdin-Iraqi story by the way). Now America has the privilege to debate about whether they should remain in Iraq or leave and they debate and debate because time is not an essence to them unlike the poor Iraqis who face the full brunt of every American decision.

nah. death is too easy. if they are indeed found guilty...

Slow and painful death?

Ok. Fine. Job stresses. Doesn't excuse it though.
Nobody said that it does excuse it. But it's important to know why they do it in order to stop it.


It's not just the prosecution. It's the attitude of the senior military leadership as well. As how to change that, what exactly do you propose hmm? The way I see it, it'll stay the way it is unless there's a complete and thorough reform of the military officer corps all the way up to the policy makers.

I agree. Some people still seem to not understand that it just isn't an injustice but hurts world perception of our country and aids the enemy.



I seem to remember a number of instances where bullshit stories covering mass murder were accepted as truth until the media blew the whistle on them. Seems like it's not so thorough hmm?

The media reported what military investigations found. They didn't carry out investigations themselves.

Slow and painful death?

Like I said...death is too easy. Life imprisonment with no parole.

Like I said...death is too easy. Life imprisonment with no parole.

Not that I want to turn this into a debate on the death penalty but... what is the point of keeping them alive but in jail for the rest of their lives? They can contribute nothing more to society. There is no point in keeping them alive. Their lives are over regardless. It's only rational to just get it over with and out of the way quickly.

Not that I want to turn this into a debate on the death penalty but... what is the point of keeping them alive but in jail for the rest of their lives? They can contribute nothing more to society. There is no point in keeping them alive. Their lives are over regardless. It's only rational to just get it over with and out of the way quickly.

Because executions serve no purpose and are nothing more than exercises in vengeance.

Because executions serve no purpose and are nothing more than exercises in vengeance.

Executions show there is a penalty for the crime.... Life imprisonment is something they can have over turned in time and in the mean time they are getting 3 meals a day and a roof over their head and all their exspenses picked up by the tax payers...a whole lot more then the person they killed gets. So that is almost like giving them a reward for murder.

Because executions serve no purpose and are nothing more than exercises in vengeance.

What purpose does it serve to maintain a life that isn't worth living? If nothing good can come from that life again then it is only rational to end it. The executions serve the purpose of being rational.

It maybe all news to you hear in America but there are more stories related to this kind of atrocities committed by American army everyday in Iraq. He (Bush) should be put in a trial in The Hague for his actions? What makes Bush different then any other leader in the world? There is a saying, "Bush killed more Iraqis, then Saddam could have ever dreamt of" This war being played out as "evil versus good" that this illegal war is supposed to be a just war is all lies and the whole world knows it and more Americans are catching up. America did this to Iraq and yet I hear that Saddam created this civil war, first of all, you don't blame a dead man for events that are occurring right now, secondly, both Shia and Sunnis are reminiscing the good old time when Iraq had police and an army, where everybody abide the law and Saddam reigned. Saddam might have stirred some sectarian tension but he was the cap and as America took out the cap, they let the genie out of the bottle (Aladdin-Iraqi story by the way). Now America has the privilege to debate about whether they should remain in Iraq or leave and they debate and debate because time is not an essence to them unlike the poor Iraqis who face the full brunt of every American decision.


So you live in Iraq and you are an Iraqi? If not you are telling me this is your opinion not something you know for fact. Just what you have decided will be your point of view based on one sided statements you hear from a biased press who does not like to give people the credit to make their own decisions, but instead tells them what they should think.

"experience the BS" I'm shovelling first hand would entail me illegally invading a country, being responsible for over a hundred thousand dead, unleashing a civil conflict, threatening my new "neighbours", as well as simultaneously fucking up/corruptly leeching off the "reconstruction" effort while maintaining a smug white-toothed smile of moral superiority. I confess thats a challenge that I'm not able to meet.

I'd be glad to take a few pot shots at some members of the occupying force though, as you never know....I might get lucky.

And sadly see you are wrong again as there has been no "illegal" invasion. Since COngress and senate ok'd everything that would make it legal, and what you are spouting as usual nothing but crap. Something which hopefully you will get tired of smelling on your own breath one day and learn to make decisions for yourself based on both sides of an issue instead of just going with the information from one side.

Executions show there is a penalty for the crime.... Life imprisonment is something they can have over turned in time and in the mean time they are getting 3 meals a day and a roof over their head and all their exspenses picked up by the tax payers...a whole lot more then the person they killed gets. So that is almost like giving them a reward for murder.

Why is then that people like Ian Brady want to die?

What purpose does it serve to maintain a life that isn't worth living? If nothing good can come from that life again then it is only rational to end it. The executions serve the purpose of being rational.

What makes you say that nothing good can come from not ending a life. Are you a precog?

What makes you say that nothing good can come from not ending a life. Are you a precog?

Nothing good can come from not ending a life that can't do any good. They are either locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives or we make the process shorter.

Like I said...death is too easy. Life imprisonment with no parole.

And no TV, pizza, and only one hamburger per meal. That may sound funny, but there was a big riot in prisons when hamburgers were lowered from two to one per meal.

Nothing good can come from not ending a life that can't do any good. They are either locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives or we make the process shorter.

Once again who knows. One thing is for certain though....capital punishment does not prevent capital crimes.

And no TV, pizza, and only one hamburger per meal. That may sound funny, but there was a big riot in prisons when hamburgers were lowered from two to one per meal.

Prison hamburgers....now that sounds like a death sentence....

I agree with TV and all the other trappings of the outside world being prohibited. For all people in prison not on remand.

Once again who knows. One thing is for certain though....capital punishment does not prevent capital crimes.



Prison hamburgers....now that sounds like a death sentence....

I agree with TV and all the other trappings of the outside world being prohibited. For all people in prison not on remand.

No internet, and no visits either.

When exactly was the last time the US military handed down a death sentence on its soldiers for murdering not-well connected, non-Americans? I very much doubt that they'd get anything more serious than "Oh well, bad mistake ha ha. Don't do it again."

Actually punishing their soldiers with equivalent sentences would mean acknowledging that stuff like this happens and that they'd be tough on it. Which they aren't. Against criminals in their ranks, the US military is about as tough as a wet paper bag.

We don't even execute deserters anymore. Haven't since the 1950s.

Maybe I should ask you - in your own country, are you for the death penalty?

Nobody said that it does excuse it. But it's important to know why they do it in order to stop it.

Why? Very simple. The biggest reason is an administrative policy that stretches back to WWII (maybe even before) that makes the US army absolutely suck at peacekeeping. Which means that when they do go around gallivanting and occupying other nations, their only way of dealing with guerrilla resistance is with their guns, bullets, bombs and not an ounce of gray matter.

That, and a permissive attitude from the higher ups of victory by bodycount.


I agree. Some people still seem to not understand that it just isn't an injustice but hurts world perception of our country and aids the enemy.


Because they think anything that goes against the military, be it bringing criminals to justice or rethinking failing tactics, is aiding the enemy.

Either way, this kind of reform against those so heavily entrenched in power is practically impossible from a legal standpoint. Either you'd have to have a dictator summarily remove them (and that's a whole lot of 'them') and put in people who actually earn their paychecks or rebuild the government from ground up.

We don't even execute deserters anymore. Haven't since the 1950s.

Maybe I should ask you - in your own country, are you for the death penalty?

We've got it for drug traffickers and murderers. I don't see any problem with that. In fact, I'd rather it be expanded to cover rapists. The only real problem is the sucky enforcement and corruption levels. Harsh punishments only work when you've got an effective police force and judiciary.

And besides, your deserters get longer and harsher sentences than murderers and rapists in uniform who get taps on the wrists by comparison. That says a lot about the priorities of the US military.

And sadly see you are wrong again as there has been no "illegal" invasion. Since COngress and senate ok'd everything that would make it legal, and what you are spouting as usual nothing but crap. Something which hopefully you will get tired of smelling on your own breath one day and learn to make decisions for yourself based on both sides of an issue instead of just going with the information from one side.

You'll find that there is more to the world, thankfully, than the view of the US. It was, effectively, an illegal act. However in practice no sanction can be taken, because theres no international body with the will or ability to enforce penalties.

I like the "as usual nothing but crap" bit, btw. It shows you care.

Why? Very simple. The biggest reason is an administrative policy that stretches back to WWII (maybe even before) that makes the US army absolutely suck at peacekeeping. Which means that when they do go around gallivanting and occupying other nations, their only way of dealing with guerrilla resistance is with their guns, bullets, bombs and not an ounce of gray matter.

That, and a permissive attitude from the higher ups of victory by bodycount.
Where do you come up with this bullshit?


Because they think anything that goes against the military, be it bringing criminals to justice or rethinking failing tactics, is aiding the enemy.

Either way, this kind of reform against those so heavily entrenched in power is practically impossible from a legal standpoint. Either you'd have to have a dictator summarily remove them (and that's a whole lot of 'them') and put in people who actually earn their paychecks or rebuild the government from ground up.
Ummmmm no. They just forget that when civilians are aiding insurgents and terrorists that you don't just kill them. Most of these cases are NCO's ,who are not given the same education on OOTW, bypassing the chain of cmmd and handling the situation in the only way that they see possible.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?


I'd say he's been at the History books again.

You'll find that there is more to the world, thankfully, than the view of the US. It was, effectively, an illegal act. However in practice no sanction can be taken, because theres no international body with the will or ability to enforce penalties.

I like the "as usual nothing but crap" bit, btw. It shows you care.

I care....but when someone is so entrenched in their own misguided dogma that they do not have the capability to even listen to the other sides argument let alone give it any credibility then well I do tend to drift on my feelings for them. I do not expect the world to agree with me, but I wish they would just thier I hate the US crusades and we are morally superior to you crap, and actually look at both sides of an issue. But hey I know...I am asking too much. And just because another group of people may not agree with what was done does not make it illegal. The UN should have done somethig about it and theyprobably would have if they did not have their corrupt little hands in the whole thing from the begining with the food to oil scandal and many others.The reason we have som many problems in this world is the UN does not have the gonads to back up their own policies. I am starting to think maybe the world would be better off without the UN....heck My country could save a lot of money without them which would save me as a tax payer money...but as long as they want to support them I will give them the benefit of the doubt as to their use. I guess we will see if they have the guts to do anything to stop trouble with these new sanctions against Iran.

I'd say he's been at the History books again.

And not in reality. The kinetic option is always the last. I'd like to know what policy he cites seeing as it doesn't exist.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Lessee, ever since WWII, when have the US military policy makers advocated a soft approach for their troops whenever sitting in a 'pacified' country that has an insurgency problem? To the best of my knowledge, never. They've almost always solved it with artillery, air strikes and raids. Not that that kind of solving did any good.

You want comparisons? Here's one. Look up how the British troops dealt with the Malayan emergency during the communist insurgency and compare it to how the US dealt with insurgencies in their places.

Then compare the success/failure ratio.

That's why I say not an ounce of gray matter. The people wearing all that shiny stamped metal on their chests are too comfortable in their positions to advocate the kind of changes that would actually go towards making for an effective peacekeeping force.


Ummmmm no. They just forget that when civilians are aiding insurgents and terrorists that you don't just kill them.

Huh? What are you talking about? We're covering US soldiers who grab random people to kill in order to say "Mission accomplished" and the kind of people who defend this shit.

Either that or we've gone waaay off course.


Most of these cases are NCO's ,who are not given the same education on OOTW, bypassing the chain of cmmd and handling the situation in the only way that they see possible.

In other words, people who shouldn't be NCO's in the first place. Not surprising given the reduction of standards in order to make up for shortfalls being implemented.

Lessee, ever since WWII, when have the US military policy makers advocated a soft approach for their troops whenever sitting in a 'pacified' country that has an insurgency problem?
Right now.

Huh? What are you talking about? We're covering US soldiers who grab random people to kill in order to say "Mission accomplished" and the kind of people who defend this shit.
Most of the cases that I know of involve a patrol taking fire or getting hit by an IED, proceeding to fire on the nearby village then entering the village to find the perpetrators. When they find that someone from the unit died and they have no one responsible they take someone and satisfy their human need for revenge and kill someone. Again, i am not trying to justify it at all.

Either that or we've gone waaay off course.
Probably.:D


In other words, people who shouldn't be NCO's in the first place. Not surprising given the reduction of standards in order to make up for shortfalls being implemented.
I know that you might not be able to understand it (not meaning to condescend) but when you are in a life and death situation, if you do not have the training and have not gone through hundreds of repetitions with that training you will probably act irrationally.

I. I do not expect the world to agree with me, but I wish they would just thier I hate the US crusades and we are morally superior to you crap, and actually look at both sides of an issue.
.

You will find very few critics of the war here who say that 'my nation is superior to the US'. What the US is doing is viewed as wrong, in and of itself. It is not a view confined to non-Americans either.


And just because another group of people may not agree with what was done does not make it illegal. .

Had it been Iran that invaded Iraq,backed by Syria we wouldnt be discussing even the possibility that it was not illegal



The UN should have done somethig about it .

Done something about what? There was no WMD, no link with Al Qaeda.


and theyprobably would have if they did not have their corrupt little hands in the whole thing from the begining with the food to oil scandal and many others..

...many others including American and British companies and nationals.



The reason we have som many problems in this world is the UN does not have the gonads to back up their own policies.
..

There is no seperate UN armed force, finances, nor does it have anyway of acting independently of its member states. If the UN can't act, its because members of the security council don't want it to.

Right now.

I'm still seeing plenty of 'hard' approach which involves patrols from fortified bases, surprise raids and assorted tactics that aren't going to endear you to the local populace.


Most of the cases that I know of involve a patrol taking fire or getting hit by an IED, proceeding to fire on the nearby village then entering the village to find the perpetrators. When they find that someone from the unit died and they have no one responsible they take someone and satisfy their human need for revenge and kill someone. Again, i am not trying to justify it at all.


Yeah, but what part of "aiding insurgents" falls into that?


I know that you might not be able to understand it (not meaning to condescend) but when you are in a life and death situation, if you do not have the training and have not gone through hundreds of repetitions with that training you will probably act irrationally.

Which doesn't detract from what I said at all. Standards have dropped.

I'm still seeing plenty of 'hard' approach which involves patrols from fortified bases, surprise raids and assorted tactics that aren't going to endear you to the local populace.
It's still a war and there are still people with guns. The iraqi people want security above all else right now. There are hardliners that you are never going to be able to convince to stop fighting. Those are people that you have to kill.


Yeah, but what part of "aiding insurgents" falls into that?
Those civilians gave their homes as fighting positions to the insurgents. In other words the town is harboring the insurgents and terrorists.



Which doesn't detract from what I said at all. Standards have dropped.
No, it pretty much shows that you enjoy spreading rhetoric instead of logic.

I know that you might not be able to understand it (not meaning to condescend) but when you are in a life and death situation, if you do not have the training and have not gone through hundreds of repetitions with that training you will probably act irrationally.
My experiance is that I'm more rational in such a case than at most other times, and that's without any training much less hundreds of repetitions.

My experiance is that I'm more rational in such a case than at most other times, and that's without any training much less hundreds of repetitions.

Have you ever been shot at? Move along.

My experiance is that I'm more rational in such a case than at most other times, and that's without any training much less hundreds of repetitions.

I think I have to ask as well How many life and death situatuions have you been in? Especially where people are shooting at you?

It's still a war and there are still people with guns. The iraqi people want security above all else right now. There are hardliners that you are never going to be able to convince to stop fighting. Those are people that you have to kill.

Security isn't going to be provided by hiding behind big walls and doing sweeps every now and then. You'd be better off using the same tactics police beat cops do, at least in terms of a continued security presence that doesn't involve running around shooting things.


Those civilians gave their homes as fighting positions to the insurgents. In other words the town is harboring the insurgents and terrorists.

So that unlucky schmuck they murdered in cold blood was one of these people? How convenient. And the term 'gave' indicates willing complicity. I think I've got a fix on your particular thinking, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think it would be reasonable to say that most Iraqis do not desire anymore bloodshed and suffering, and that when it comes to making yourself scarce and maybe living a little longer or fighting and dying here and now, most would choose the latter.


No, it pretty much shows that you enjoy spreading rhetoric instead of logic.

No, you yourself said that unless they went through a lot of training regarding situations like this, they'd react in that way. Since it stands to reason that if what you say is true, they didn't get such training. As such, standards have dropped in training before a person is declared 'combat ready'.

As for being shot at? Once. Obviously, he missed.

Because executions serve no purpose and are nothing more than exercises in vengeance.

So?

So?

Well if one is looking for vengeance one is most likely irrational and illogical in thought...which has more often than not ended up with someone who is innocent being deprived of their life.

So?

Because Law =/= Vengeance.

It's still a war and there are still people with guns.


That does tend to happen against armies of occupation. Like it or not, thats the way they see you.

yeah, i was going to point that out. last week we were saying how falsifiable military courts are and now this...

:p


Yeah - when a Guantanamo prisoner is on trial, it's OMG BUSH COURTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, but when it's an American soldiers, OMG HE MUST BE GUILTY.

Remember - the article says it, so it must be true!


FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD

Err... Marines ARE soldiers. They're not infantry. They are soldiers.

To be fair to everyone involved, Marines are just that, Marines. Soldiers are people who fight in the Army branch of the US Armed Forces. We have distinctions that matter. In the Navy you're a Sailor or Seamen, Army Soldiers, Marines are Marines, and Air Force are just bitches. Sorry, had to add a get for the good old AF.

To be fair to everyone involved, Marines are just that, Marines. Soldiers are people who fight in the Army branch of the US Armed Forces. We have distinctions that matter. In the Navy you're a Sailor or Seamen, Army Soldiers, Marines are Marines, and Air Force are just bitches. Sorry, had to add a get for the good old AF.

No, the AF people are Junior Flyboys.

Security isn't going to be provided by hiding behind big walls and doing sweeps every now and then. You'd be better off using the same tactics police beat cops do, at least in terms of a continued security presence that doesn't involve running around shooting things.

Is that really what you think we do?


So that unlucky schmuck they murdered in cold blood was one of these people? How convenient. And the term 'gave' indicates willing complicity. I think I've got a fix on your particular thinking, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously there are cases where a gang will take over a civilian house but it is far from the norm. It is much more common for entire families to be committed to the insurgency and will give up their houses willingly. Again, i'm not justifying their actions at all.


No, you yourself said that unless they went through a lot of training regarding situations like this, they'd react in that way. Since it stands to reason that if what you say is true, they didn't get such training. As such, standards have dropped in training before a person is declared 'combat ready'.

They went through training to react to the ambush, but not how to deal w/ civilians harboring insurgents. The proper way to handle the situation would be to cordon the area where you received fire, conduct patrols into that area knocking on doors in the outer areas and forcibly entering houses in the inner area. For every house that you entered and found nobody you apologize, explain why you had to do it and ask if they wanted anything to make up for it.
As for being shot at? Once. Obviously, he missed.
I doubt it but i guess that i'll have to take your word for it. And it's not so obvious that he missed. I've been shot before and I lived.

That does tend to happen against armies of occupation. Like it or not, thats the way they see you.

First of all, you don't know shit about what they see us as. The majority of Iraqis that I've talked to feel more safe with us around. When I was there we were essentially the only reliable police force in Iraq. They needed us and they knew it. Don't tell me that they wouldn't need us if we weren't there b/c that is a different argument for a different time.

First of all, you don't know shit about what they see us as. The majority of Iraqis that I've talked to feel more safe with us around. When I was there we were essentially the only reliable police force in Iraq. They needed us and they knew it. Don't tell me that they wouldn't need us if we weren't there b/c that is a different argument for a different time.


They need you because you destroyed their country. Well done.

First of all, you don't know shit about what they see us as. The majority of Iraqis that I've talked to feel more safe with us around. When I was there we were essentially the only reliable police force in Iraq. They needed us and they knew it. Blinkered much?

Don't tell me that they wouldn't need us if we weren't there b/c that is a different argument for a different time.

So, what? You're there on a holiday? "Occupation, holiday. Whatever. It's all good."

They need you because you destroyed their country. Well done.

They need us b/c people care more about their gangs territory then the well-being of their fellow citizens.

Is that really what you think we do?


Not all of it certainly, but I'm willing to say it forms a majority portion of US operations.


Again, i'm not justifying their actions at all.

So long as we have that understanding.


They went through training to react to the ambush, but not how to deal w/ civilians harboring insurgents. The proper way to handle the situation would be to cordon the area where you received fire, conduct patrols into that area knocking on doors in the outer areas and forcibly entering houses in the inner area. For every house that you entered and found nobody you apologize, explain why you had to do it and ask if they wanted anything to make up for it.

So you're saying the US doesn't train its soldiers to deal with an insurgency then? I seem to remember that you asked where I came up with this what was it? Bullshit you said wasn't it?


I doubt it but i guess that i'll have to take your word for it. And it's not so obvious that he missed. I've been shot before and I lived.

Fair enough.

They need us b/c people care more about their gangs territory then the well-being of their fellow citizens.

This would not be the case had there been no invasion. However, the blame for that certainly doesn't lie on you, or any of the ground level staff, but rather, the commander in chief.

Blaming a gun that was used to commit a crime instead of the wielder is utterly stupid.

Not all of it certainly, but I'm willing to say it forms a majority portion of US operations.
Not at all. The majority of all operations are the following: all day patrols (to the point where them coming from a base is mute), providing security for and carrying out civil works projects, and training IP and IA.


So you're saying the US doesn't train its soldiers to deal with an insurgency then? I seem to remember that you asked where I came up with this what was it? Bullshit you said wasn't it?
I know how to deal w/ an insurgency and I am a product of U.S. training. However it would be impossible to train every grunt the intricacies of dealing with every contingency and, as I said before, it is when the chain of cmmd is broken and people who haven't been trained start making big decisions that mistakes are made.