US soldier gets 35 years in deaths of 4 Iraqis

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Suppose that guy who was killed was a terrorist or had plans to kill Americans. Would YOU feel the same about how he died if he was?

That's a HUGE "what if"...

If somebody was drunk driving and ran somebody over, killing them on the spot, but the person who died planned on shooting up their school the next day, should we let the drunk driver go free of all charges? You know, because he stopped something bad from happening, right?

If it was proven beforehand that these Iraqis were terrorists who had a plan, that was already set in stone, to attack America, yes...I would feel a little differently.

But, the Iraqis that were murdered couldn't even be proved to have been shooting at these soldiers in the first place because there wasn't any evidence that would suggest it.
 

Violator79

Take a Hit, Spunker!
That's a HUGE "what if"...

If somebody was drunk driving and ran somebody over, killing them on the spot, but the person who died planned on shooting up their school the next day, should we let the drunk driver go free of all charges? You know, because he stopped something bad from happening, right?

I'd say that guy should be punished, but a light sentence because he saved lives. He didn't have the best method, but it was effective.

If it was proven beforehand that these Iraqis were terrorists who had a plan, that was already set in stone, to attack America, yes...I would feel a little differently.

But, the Iraqis that were murdered couldn't even be proved to have been shooting at these soldiers in the first place because there wasn't any evidence that would suggest it.

Good point, but suppose that guy didn't have plans now, but tomorrow he got a hold of an IED or some kind of bomb and was planning on killing people. Would you still want that soldier in prison, or would you be thanking him for saving lives? Preventive action works, it just takes longer for the results to come through.
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Good point, but suppose that guy didn't have plans now, but tomorrow he got a hold of an IED or some kind of bomb and was planning on killing people. Would you still want that soldier in prison, or would you be thanking him for saving lives? Preventive action works, it just takes longer for the results to come through.

Then we might as well start killing every single person who walks the face of the earth. I mean, we never know what they could do in the future, so why not kill them now and prevent it from happening?
 

Violator79

Take a Hit, Spunker!
Then we might as well start killing every single person who walks the face of the earth. I mean, we never know what they could do in the future, so why not kill them now and prevent it from happening?

Because there's still some good people in the world, worthy of saving. If we kill everyone, then who's left to kill the people that killed everyone else?

I think it's safe to say that you and I agree to disagree.
 

Marlo Manson

Hello Sexy girl how your Toes doing?
KILL, KILL, KILL the insurgents. kill the enemy. kill em all. even though we invaded there land unjustly. we killed for greed. we killed for vengeance. we killed cuz we can. we killed the wrong fucking people in the wrong fucking country. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. infact he didn't even like or trust religious fanatics such as Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden so what does that tell you?

Only that TRILLIONS of $$$ was irresponsibly SPENT TO FINANCE AN ILLEGAL INVASION
if you wonder why the economy and all the banks and lenders, wall street, steel mills and auto makers are going belly up. the auto industry is all but decimated. look no further than this sham of a military waste that cost the USA trillions. but, we will not waver. now kill em all. but not those dudes. :eek::shock: say what?

How the fuck are they (the shit brains calling the shots) gonna command the troops to kill and it just so happens that thousands of those killed. slaughtered were innocents. but then go and charge a[some] PI's for murder? that's deplorable! :rolleyes::mad::thefinger Whomever is behind all this bureaucratic :bs: ought too be ashamed of themselves and the conduct of the GOP for the past 8 fuckin years. :throwup:
 

Skyraider22

The One and Only Big Daddy
so because somebody else did something worse murder is OK? and if it hadn't been on the news it would be OK?

No my friend that is not what I'm saying but I do understand why you are saying that murder is murder and in this case this is murder it is not right what he did Things like this happen everyday in Iraq it just does not make the news that is what I'm saying.:thumbsup:
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Because there's still some good people in the world, worthy of saving. If we kill everyone, then who's left to kill the people that killed everyone else?

I think it's safe to say that you and I agree to disagree.

Not all good people stay good people though. Potentially, good people can become just as dangerous as bad people.

And, not all bad people stay bad people. Potentially, bad people can become just as innocent as good people.

:2 cents:
 
Then we might as well start killing every single person who walks the face of the earth. I mean, we never know what they could do in the future, so why not kill them now and prevent it from happening?

Assuming that you're being at least 99% sarcastic here Chef, I'm happy to say that we agree for once (on the bad idea that is pre-emptive military actions against "pre-crime" terrorists or nations [see film "Minority Report" believe it or not - it's not perfect, but it does make some interesting point about crime and punishment]).

:hatsoff:
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Assuming that you're being at least 99% sarcastic here Chef, I'm happy to say that we agree for once (on the bad idea that is pre-emptive military actions against "pre-crime" terrorists or nations [see film "Minority Report" believe it or not - it's not perfect, but it does make some interesting point about crime and punishment]).

:hatsoff:

I just don't see where the mentality of killing someone before they even do something bad can be justified, you know?

I like to drink beer so someone better fucking kill me. I mean, I could drink some beer, hop into a car, speed through a school zone and kill a bunch of kids, so kill me now to prevent it from ever happening!!!
 

Namreg

Banned
No my friend that is not what I'm saying but I do understand why you are saying that murder is murder and in this case this is murder it is not right what he did Things like this happen everyday in Iraq it just does not make the news that is what I'm saying.:thumbsup:

ok i understand you. sorry about that :)
 

Violator79

Take a Hit, Spunker!
Not all good people stay good people though. Potentially, good people can become just as dangerous as bad people.

And, not all bad people stay bad people. Potentially, bad people can become just as innocent as good people.

:2 cents:

I find it hard to believe that good people can go bad just the same as bad people can go good. If you're a good person, chances are you'll stay that way for life. Bad people are usually bad and stay that way for life. Yes both have the potential to turn, but you rarely hear of a good person going bad and even more rarely hear of a bad person going good.
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
I find it hard to believe that good people can go bad just the same as bad people can go good. If you're a good person, chances are you'll stay that way for life. Bad people are usually bad and stay that way for life. Yes both have the potential to turn, but you rarely hear of a good person going bad and even more rarely hear of a bad person going good.

If you paid attention to life, you would notice that good people turn bad and that bad people turn good all the time.

There are so many cases in which an ex-con turns the page and helps establish programs that influence kids to stay out of gangs, keep out of trouble and stay in school. There are drunk drivers that have killed someone during a DUI-related accident that speak at MADD meetings to influence people to not drink and drive. There are former professional burglars that change their ways and assist home owners in making their houses safer. There are former drug dealers that assist the police in controlling drug-related cases and offer useful information.

Also...

There are a lot of cases in which a picture perfect citizen gets drunk one night, hops into a car and kills someone. There are cases in which a church going, good hearted individual snaps and kills their spouse. There are cases in which innocent little kids pick up a gun and kill somebody.

So...:dunno:
 
Not all good people stay good people though. Potentially, good people can become just as dangerous as bad people.

And, not all bad people stay bad people. Potentially, bad people can become just as innocent as good people.

:2 cents:
"Every saint has a past. Every sinner, a future".

cheers,
 
After reading the comments in this thread this article probably belongs here

Marine Staff Sergeant 'lost control' and sprayed Iraqi family with bullets, jury hears at opening of Haditha massacre trial



On trial: Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich arrives at the court in Camp Pendleton, California, with his lawyer Neal Puckett on Monday

A Marine sergeant charged in the biggest criminal case against U.S. troops in the Iraq war made a series of fatal assumptions and lost control of himself when he and his squad killed 24 Iraqis, including unarmed women and children, a military prosecutor said Monday.

Maj. Nicholas Gannon made the accusations to a jury of battle-hardened Marines hearing the case against Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, more than six years after the squad committed the killings in the town of Haditha.

'The evidence will show that none of the victims were a threat,' Gannon told jurors in his opening statement.

Prosecutors told the military jury of four officers and four enlisted Marines that Wuterich shot indiscriminately without taking time to identify his targets after a roadside bomb exploded and killed a Marine.

The prosecution has implicated Wuterich in the deaths of 19 of the 24 Iraqis killed that day, the Associated Press reports.

Wuterich and another Marine fatally shot five men in a car near the site where the bomb went off, prosecutors said.

Wuterich then ordered his squad to clear a nearby home with gunfire and grenades, telling them to shoot first and ask questions later, according to the prosecution.

After killing men, women and children inside the first home, the Marines went to a second home, where Wuterich stood at the foot of a bed in a back bedroom, spraying a woman and children with bullets, Gannon said.

The killings in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, are considered among the war's defining moments, further tainting America's reputation when it was already at a low point after the release of photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

In his opening statement, Wuterich's attorney Haytham Faraj told jurors that Navy investigators, under pressure to show the Marine Corps was not covering up the massacre, brutally interrogated the other Marines in the squad for up to 14 hours and offered to drop charges against them if they testified against their squad leader.

'You have a bunch of scared Marines promised immunity who are going to tell you about things that did not happen,' Faraj said.

Faraj, a retired Marine, asked jurors to apply their knowledge of the Marine Corps and combat experience when judging the case.

He said Wuterich's battalion had been told by commanders that intelligence indicated the city was becoming a hotbed of insurgents.

After the bomb exploded, the squad came under small arms fire when Wuterich ordered the homes to be cleared, believing there were insurgents hiding there, Faraj said.

'We don't believe there was a crime committed here,' Faraj said. 'It was the unfortunate result of an attempt to do the right thing, but it turned out to be tragic.'

Wuterich is charged with nine counts of voluntary manslaughter.

He has said he regretted the loss of civilian lives but believed he was operating within military combat rules.

He is the last of the eight Marines initially accused of murder or failure to investigate the killings to face trial.

Six had charges dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.

Gannon said evidence will show Wuterich 'never lost control of his squad ... but he made a series of fatal assumptions and he lost control of himself.'

Gannon also showed excerpts from an interview of Wuterich by '60 Minutes' in which he said he believed none of the Marines with him went against his orders.

A full investigation didn't begin until a Time magazine reporter inquired about the deaths in January 2006, two months after the incident.

Retired Army Col. Gregory Watt, who led the initial probe, testified that Wuterich told him that he had instructed his squad to go into the homes firing, recalling 'I told them to shoot first, ask questions later.'

'I clearly remember that,' Watt testified. 'Sgt. Wuterich at the time was very straightforward, very professional and very forthcoming.'

Watt added: 'He said that on more than one occasion as we talked through the events that transpired.'

Army Lt. Col. David Mendelson, who assisted Watt in the investigation, told jurors he was surprised to hear that Wuterich had instructed his squad in that way and had acknowledged that he didn't positively identify his targets, a basic combat rule when deciding to use deadly fire.

'Those were things that clearly stood out and troubled me,' Mendelson testified.

Legal experts say military prosecutors face an uphill battle trying to prove, so many years later, that Wuterich's actions were criminal. Wrangling over unaired outtakes of the 60 Minutes interview delayed the case from going to trial for years before prosecutors won the right to view the footage.

Some believe the jury of combat Marines - many of whom cleared homes in Iraq like the operation Wuterich ordered - will be better equipped for the case over a civilian one in which people may not feel comfortable judging what is considered to be an appropriate reaction in the chaos of war.

'Military jurors may say, look tens of thousands of us went to war zones and didn't kill civilians, but they may also be willing to consider the fact that the individual may have been caught in the fog of war,' said former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-Haditha-Iraq-jury-hears.html#ixzz1j31Zus8W
 
Top