US soldier gets 35 years in deaths of 4 Iraqis

[Philbert]

It's interesting how so many comments are completely judgemental; no grey area here, seemingly.
Nazis, murderers...no one sees any difference here between taking non-combative civilians out and killing them for being who they are (Nazis), or killing someone for financial gain or the pleasure of ending a life that offends you by merely being there in front of you (murderers). Neither set of victims is engaged in shooting, attempting to kill anyone, or any kind of physical threat...before or after the moment of their death.
Yet, a completely legal criminal execution by the State of a convicted murderer, who is bound, then killed while no immediate threat, is an accepted act...no one calls for a prison sentence for those involved.

The Iraqis were captured attempting to kill American soldiers, and face to face the involved soldiers knew these were men who had every intention of putting a world of hurt on their brothers or any other soldier they could get in their sights.
Passage of time seems to be the only factor here that turned the men from legitimate targets into innocent murder victims.

Yet, sitting safely behind your keyboards, no one is the least bit unsure these soldiers are murderers and deserve to get prison time...big time prison time.

I truly believe if any of you were shot at by someone you could see, with no witnesses; someone you knew was intending to kill you now or later, and ran into them another time away from any other people, you would at the very least wish you could get them first before they took your life or someone in your family who might be in your house when they tried again.

If your parents knew you were drinking alcohol when you were 15 or 16, but just sometimes and with friends as a rite of passage thing, they wouldn't approve but would let it go as normal and part of life.
Yet, if you were caught in your room drinking they would have to discipline you, simply because the authority of a parent confronted publicly with an offense requires a response, or a loss of their power to "punish" any future offenses would result. They would be forced to respond by the public nature of your "crime" against the rules.
The Military was doing the same here, which is why I think the actual crime the soldiers committed was getting caught, forcing the prosecution and sentencing of the soldiers involved.

Not a judgment on the right and wrong of things, just a factual observation.

 

[ChefChiTown]

The Iraqis were captured attempting to kill American soldiers

No, they weren't...

The Iraqis were taken to the unit's base for questioning and processing, although there was not enough evidence to hold them for attacking the unit.

 

[Hot Mega]

It's interesting how so many comments are completely judgemental;
Yet, a completely legal criminal execution by the State of a convicted murderer, who is bound, then killed while no immediate threat, is an accepted act...no one calls for a prison sentence for those involved.

The Iraqis were captured attempting to kill American soldiers, and face to face the involved soldiers knew these were men who had every intention of putting a world of hurt on their brothers or any other soldier they could get in their sights.
Passage of time seems to be the only factor here that turned the men from legitimate targets into innocent murder victims.

Yet, sitting safely behind your keyboards, no one is the least bit unsure these soldiers are murderers and deserve to get prison time...big time prison time.

Well, a person condemned to death has theoretically has his/her day in court and for the crime they committed their punishment was forfeiture of life.

There is no provision for killing an person on the battlefield who has either surrendered or is not a threat to a military objective. To do so is murder...period.

Speaking from experience, being a combatant on the battlefield is no excuse for murder.

War and conflict is ugly but you have to maintain your military bearing.

 

[Philbert]

No, they weren't...

Yes, they were...evidence isn't to convince you of what you already know, it's to convince someone else who wasn't there of what happened.
No newscrews or fingerprint analysis available at a firefight.

 

[Facetious]

Re: US soldier gets 35 years in deaths of 4 Iraqis

Shit ! Might as well just tack on 2 additional life sentences.

The message that this sends is . . . Always hesitate and remain tentative at all times when in the field of battle. Always give your probable opponent the benefit of the doubt. For good measure keep your finger outside the trigger guard of your service rifle . . . . on second thought, unload the chamber . . . . empty the mag of its content . . . throw your rifle in the bonfire . . . and go have sex with your boyfriend you . . .. you . . . silly, poor excuse for a man !!! :thefinger


Remember, many high ranking military officials either resigned or retired early in the Klinton administration. Trojan horse military hierarchy at work . . (enemies within).

What we have here is a compromised military ambiance.

 

[Philbert]

Well, a person condemned to death has theoretically has his/her day in court and for the crime they committed their punishment was forfeiture of life.

There is no provision for killing an person on the battlefield who has either surrendered or is not a threat to a military objective. To do so is murder...period.

Speaking from experience, being a combatant on the battlefield is no excuse for murder.

War and conflict is ugly but you have to maintain your military bearing.

The point of mentioning the execution of a convicted murderer is that the same description fits exactly...not to use details to fritter away the valid reference.

Captured during an ambush or a firefight isn't the same as surrendered...and now you claim Spec Forces sent to take out key insurgents or ranking officers are murderers and should be prosecuted...along with every sniper who took out a target a mile away who wasn't pointing a weapon at the time.
Don't forget an air strike on an insurgent big target who might have been eating a Taco at the time 500 lbs of high explosive landed on his world...you may have combat time, but I doubt you have command experience to see things so simply.

 

[Namreg]

you are actually trying to justify murder here, simply because the murderer was wearing a uniform at the time he executed those people. by your logic then, mohammed atta would not be a murderer if he had worn a uniform. you sink to ever deeper levels of retardation.

 

[Philbert]

you are actually trying to justify murder here, simply because the murderer was wearing a uniform at the time he executed those people. by your logic then, mohammed atta would not be a murderer if he had worn a uniform. you sink to ever deeper levels of retardation.

Uh-oh, showing a bit of desperation there, huh?
You can't find a rebuttal to clear logic, and have to sputter out some offensive flaming disguised as "joining the discussion".
I made my point clearly, and trying to twist it around to imply I use your system of "almost intelligent" idea processing is embarrassing (for you) and anyone wasting their time following your "logic".
Not even a nice try...
:nono:

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: US soldier gets 35 years in deaths of 4 Iraqis

Remember, many high ranking military officials either resigned or retired early in the Klinton administration. Trojan horse military hierarchy at work . . (enemies within).

What we have here is a compromised military ambiance.

:helpme:

I suppose no "high ranking military officials" did so under Bush ..
:rofl:

 

[Philbert]

:helpme:

I suppose no "high ranking military officials" did so under Bush ..
:rofl:

You really didn't say anything...:dunno:


(What happened to developing an idea and actually saying something?)

 

[Hot Mega]

You really didn't say anything...:dunno:


(What happened to developing an idea and actually saying something?)

You're suggesting our military is somehow compromised from within because some military officials retired or resigned under Clinton and you're expecting a serious response to something like that??

Nevermind the fact that many have done so under the former Bush administration...but I supposed those were the bad career military officials huh??
:rofl:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Yes, they were...evidence isn't to convince you of what you already know, it's to convince someone else who wasn't there of what happened.
No newscrews or fingerprint analysis available at a firefight.

The evidence wasn't there because they couldn't prove that the Iraqis they killed were the ones that were shooting at them to begin with. If you want to talk about things we "already know", then we should talk about how soldiers at war kill innocent people, every single day. This case is no different.

 

[Torre82]

Well.. :uts my drink down::

The military trains killers. The battlefield is like a Jerry Springer show. You can legally kill people on either side without fear of punishment. Insurgents.. friendly fire.. it's all relevant. It's all in their context.

Killing the enemy even while blindfolded is still killing enemy. A soldier has gone thru a complete transformation most people cant even imagine. Doubly so when in wartime. My positive contribution is that this isnt a secluded little incident. This and hundreds.. thousands of events like it have happened throughout history. It shouldnt be some huge event so much as just another soldier losing control. A mind is a fragile thing, and .. well.. yeah.

Look at the bigger picture and dont blame the soldier for doing what he was trained to do. Give a creature a means and training to kill other people and expect them to exercise restraint? Never gonna happen. What we hear thru the news is only 1/10th of what actually happens. They're sorry they got caught. That's all

 

[Facetious]

I truly believe if any of you were shot at by someone you could see, with no witnesses; someone you knew was intending to kill you now or later, and ran into them another time away from any other people, you would at the very least wish you could get them first before they took your life or someone in your family who might be in your house when they tried again.

. . . :hatsoff:

 

[CptHa]

I think what's lost here is that he entered a guilty plea. We all know that judicial systems dole out softer, for lack of a better word, punishment when someone admits there guilt. That said, shooting people who are blind folded and bound is not how any member of the US military is trained. Every soldier, sailor, marine, and airmen is taught the Geneva Covention and the Law of Armed Conflict. I can understand where they were coming form but that by no means gives them the right to summarily execute prisoners. If we do that, then we have failed, not simply militarily, but socially. Killing of prisoners is a line that we simply should not cross, it means that we are no better than they are.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Well.. :uts my drink down::

The military trains killers. The battlefield is like a Jerry Springer show. You can legally kill people on either side without fear of punishment. Insurgents.. friendly fire.. it's all relevant. It's all in their context.

Killing the enemy even while blindfolded is still killing enemy. A soldier has gone thru a complete transformation most people cant even imagine. Doubly so when in wartime. My positive contribution is that this isnt a secluded little incident. This and hundreds.. thousands of events like it have happened throughout history. It shouldnt be some huge event so much as just another soldier losing control. A mind is a fragile thing, and .. well.. yeah.

Look at the bigger picture and dont blame the soldier for doing what he was trained to do. Give a creature a means and training to kill other people and expect them to exercise restraint? Never gonna happen. What we hear thru the news is only 1/10th of what actually happens. They're sorry they got caught. That's all

I can't believe it. I honestly can't believe it Torre. Of all the things I thought about you as a human being, I begin to like you and then you go and say something ridiculous and unbelievable like this. Where are your morals? Where is your head? Up your ass? Because, that's where it seems like it is. I...SIGH, I don't even know what to say to you. I just, I can't...I honestly can't believe what I just read. I mean...




























YOU PUT YOUR DRINK DOWN?!?!?! I can't tell you how ashamed of you I am right now.

 

[calpoon]

I know it's hard for you to believe Phil, but not all of us would kill someone just because we perceived them as being a threat, or support the death penalty.

People talk about about combat situations while ignoring the clear fact that these kills did not occur during combat at all, it wasn't a matter of confusing the target, this soldiers admitted that he took the guys out in the desert with the sole intent of executing them and then followed through with it. Premeditated murder is still what it is, even if you think that they deserved it. Neither civilians or military personnel are granted the privilege to do that, which is why this man was found guilty and sentenced for their crimes.

 

[Philbert]

I think what's lost here is that he entered a guilty plea. We all know that judicial systems dole out softer, for lack of a better word, punishment when someone admits there guilt. That said, shooting people who are blind folded and bound is not how any member of the US military is trained. Every soldier, sailor, marine, and airmen is taught the Geneva Covention and the Law of Armed Conflict. I can understand where they were coming form but that by no means gives them the right to summarily execute prisoners. If we do that, then we have failed, not simply militarily, but socially. Killing of prisoners is a line that we simply should not cross, it means that we are no better than they are.

I agree, they should have left them at the scene...sometimes events just go down a path and only later does the clarity set in.

Chef...I know I'm assuming here, but I'm clear on the fact that they were clear these were the guys they were exchanging fire with...and that's why they took the extreme action they later took. Knowing they would probably have had better luck next time they opened up on some US troops. Sooner or later some of our troops would have taken rounds or been blown into ugly shapes.
This has sent a clear message to all the US troops who end up with live belligerents... leave them at the scene.
Those who don't already know that...

This all goes back to a very clear fact of life...those who bear witness to war are usually the most anti-war proponents. The choices you have to make constantly go way beyond the normal things we usually deal with...killing is not covered by clear sets of rules, not for every situation and not for every engagement.
Whereas being dead is pretty much covered by two words...game over.

 

[Philbert]

I know it's hard for you to believe Phil, but not all of us would kill someone just because we perceived them as being a threat, or support the death penalty.

People talk about about combat situations while ignoring the clear fact that these kills did not occur during combat at all, it wasn't a matter of confusing the target, this soldiers admitted that he took the guys out in the desert with the sole intent of executing them and then followed through with it. Premeditated murder is still what it is, even if you think that they deserved it. Neither civilians or military personnel are granted the privilege to do that, which is why this man was found guilty and sentenced for their crimes.

Actually, you missed a couple of things there.
I know there are people who won't do the hard thing and would wait and see if they could survive the obvious desire of someone to end it "their way"...too bad if Mom catches a round or two, life is a crapshoot, right?
And of course there are lot's of folks against the Death Penalty...why would that be hard to believe? It's an obvious fact of life, and a good thing ...intelligent dissent is always the true conscience of a society. How is it you don't know that obvious fact?

As for " Premeditated murder is still what it is, even if you think that they deserved it. Neither civilians or military personnel are granted the privilege to do that, which is why this man was found guilty and sentenced for their crimes."...you either missed my earlier words or didn't bother to read them...premeditated killing is often condoned, ordered, and carried out openly and with complete approval. As in taking out various key players through airstrikes, sniper kills, and Special Forces missions.
Do you think Bin Laden wouldn't be killed the first chance available no matter if he was watering his garden or taking a piss?
These guys did what they did outside of the approved order of things, and got caught.
No approval, no grace.

 

[Facetious]

Remember, many high ranking military officials either resigned or retired early in the Klinton administration. Trojan horse military hierarchy at work . . (enemies within).

What we have here is a compromised military ambiance.

Read between the lines for those in question of above statements.
Are your comrades really your comrades anymore ? Has our military been undermined by those who, in reality, "loath it'', just as a recent former President did ?

√ Remember the ''Haditha Massacre'' that wasn't and all of the hell that ''authorities'' put General Chessani through ? Unfounded bullshit !

√ Abu Garbage and all of this supposed ''torture'' that took place . . .if they ever knew what ''torture'' was in the first place !

''Oh, my ! A dog is growling at me through the bars !'' :shy: