Marine gets three months in jail for massacring two dozen civilians

[mrCide]

IMHO, the war should have never happened, but once we are fighting, these kind of things are a big deal but not at all punishable. these are young immature soldiers who are put under extraordinary circumstances, its not their fault is the loose it. Its a cost of war, if you fight shit will happen, deal with it. People how expect a clean war are morons.

It's very much so their fault; what a silly thing to say.

 

[Texashiker]

An insult to all Iraqis. Justice denied.

Given his situation, can you honestly say you have acted any differently?

The man made the best decisions he could at the time.

It's very much so their fault; what a silly thing to say.

You harm American troops, expect to get the crap kicked out of you and everyone around you.

 

[Whiskey16]

Given his situation, can you honestly say you have acted any differently?

The man made the best decisions he could at the time.

Gotcha. Despite law, standards, and evident behaviour of this being an extreme outlier of a high crime, you hold immorally low expectations of the US military. Out of undisciplined vengance you advocate the US military to commit mass massacres of civilians.

Texashiker, you are flat out right [Wrong...meant WRONG...bad typo], and I relish to witness the following replies that will trash your irreponsible position and continue the well deserved condemnation of the US military for this result.

 

[khon]

The man made the best decisions he could at the time.

That is completely and utterly false.

He made pretty much the worst possible decisions he could at the time, and the results is that 24 unarmed civilians got slaughtered in their own homes, many of them young children.

The situation he was in is far from unique, but everyone else managed to deal with it without racking up this kind of body count.

 

[Whiskey16]

Texashiker, let me add, you display a culture that attempts to rationlise the indefensible. A society and culture that would prefer to bury and forget its indefensible actions, in favour of moving on.

This military court ruling cannot defend itself, but will hope this is is settled, will soon be forgot, and the shame it brings is hoped to be minuscule.

This was a high crime with the practical result of impunity. The same can be said of the Iraq war itself. That military court judgement is following the examples of the US government.

Now, the same condemnation can be brought up higher in the command chain and into US politics. The UK, at least has had an enquiry upon the Iraq war. The USA is far too socially and morally immature to cope with an investigation of itself upon the indefensible position to invade Iraq.

A notion for impunity and face saving is the order of the day in US society for its foreign aggressions.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Gotcha. Despite law, standards, and evident behaviour of this being an extreme outlier of a high crime, you hold immorally low expectations of the US military. Out of undisciplined vengance you advocate the US military to commit mass massacres of civilians.


Texashiker, you are flat out right, and I relish to witness the following replies that will trash your irreponsible position and continue the well deserved condemnation of the US military for this result.

This is basically a carbon copy of his opinion about the woman that got kicked in the face for kicking a police officer in the shin. Except this time, we're talking about a massacre, killing everyone around including women and children, regardless of their involvement in the attack on the troops. I guess it doesn't matter what the situation is, some people don't want people in positions of authority to be held accountable.

Think about it this way. If the United States, or part of it, were occupied by some enemy force (ie Red Dawn) and you were part of a partisan resistance cell and you attacked an enemy unit, what would you think if they chased you back to your homes and slaughtered everyone? It's a crime when it happens to us but not when we do it?

 

[McWatt]

I meant the poor suckers, ie the American public, who will be on the receiving end of the abuse doled out by these psychopatic/insane ex-military types. And just like military "justice" is a sick kind of joke it is extremely hard to get police officers convicted for anything, perfect environment for these psychos to do their shit wouldn't you say.

But my overall point is that congratulations to the US society that have a lot of these severly fucked up types of people to return to US society, good luck with that.

There's a reason Roman soldiers were given land in the territories they conquered instead of being invited back to the Italian peninsula. Then again, I doubt the Iraqis people would be happy with their new neighbors.

 

[Texashiker]

Gotcha. Despite law, standards, and evident behaviour of this being an extreme outlier of a high crime, you hold immorally low expectations of the US military. Out of undisciplined vengance you advocate the US military to commit mass massacres of civilians.

For some reason its ok for muslims to kill each other, and to kill others. But if someone else kills a muslim, expect a crap storm to follow.

Some suicide bomber walks into a market, kills innocent civilians, women and children included, and for some reason that barely makes the news. But when a US solider kills some so called "innocents", holy crap, let the storm begin.

When people in Iraq stop killing each other in the name of religion, then I think they have the right to point the finger at others. Lets not hold non-muslims to a different set of standards.

 

[Brovane]

All I got to say is this. Their wasn't enough evidence that the Marines delibaretly acted to kill innocent civilians. If the evidence was there the prosecution wouldn't have dropped the charges for the plea bargain. When you have a enemy that hides amongst civilians this type of stuff is going to happen. The USMC is a sledge hammer not a scalpel. We shouldn't have been over their in the first place but I cannot really fault the Marines on the ground. We where not the ones taking fire.

 

[Craig234]

All I got to say is this. Their wasn't enough evidence that the Marines delibaretly acted to kill innocent civilians. If the evidence was there the prosecution wouldn't have dropped the charges for the plea bargain.

It's absurd for you to make an assertion what their intent was or the motives of the prosecution. How do you know the reason for dropping charges wasn't something else?

 

[HumblePie]

Okay, first off all this happened in foreign land. So laws of the US really don't apply over there. He would have to normally face the laws of the land he broke where he was caught. But since he was in the military and over there for deployment then we subject him and others with him to the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice).

Usually the UCMJ is quite severe as commanders typically want to make examples of idiots for the littlest thing. That is usually the case. Trials by the UCMJ are not like trials in a normal criminal court case. Nor can he be tried in a normal criminal court case here in the states.

Still, the fact is we don't know all the reasonings behind this case. Was him and his squad told that the entire town was hostile and to proceed with extreme prejudice? In which case his actions were based solely off the information and directions provided to him by superiors. Which doesn't negate the fact that he DID those things, but that he was still following orders to a point. In a war it is harder to judge good lawful orders from bad ones that shouldn't be followed. Strange as it seems, the movie "A Few Good Men" had quite a decent plot involving a scenario of marines just following orders that should be questioned instead. But it's really hard to question orders from a higher officer. Why? In peacetime if you question orders that turn out to be lawful then you can be subject to a court martial and drummed out at best. In war time? You can be executed for treason.

From my experience if he has his sentenced cut then it was probably because he was following orders at the time. Bad order, but doing what he was told.

 

[Craig234]

For some reason its ok for muslims to kill each other, and to kill others. But if someone else kills a muslim, expect a crap storm to follow.

Some suicide bomber walks into a market, kills innocent civilians, women and children included, and for some reason that barely makes the news. But when a US solider kills some so called "innocents", holy crap, let the storm begin.

When people in Iraq stop killing each other in the name of religion, then I think they have the right to point the finger at others. Lets not hold non-muslims to a different set of standards.

More dehumanizing people lies. No, it's NOT 'ok' for Muslims to kill each other or others - you are lying, and your lies are leading you to then falsely claim it's hypocritical for criticizing the murder of Muslims. Your logic is to lie that people say they're allowed to murder no problem - and you use that lie to say murdering those people is ok. Immoral scum.

 

[Texashiker]

From my experience if he has his sentenced cut then it was probably because he was following orders at the time. Bad order, but doing what he was told.

The Nuremberg Trials set a legal precedent, "following orders" is no defense when it comes to crimes against humanity.

If the solider was "following orders", then his superiors should also be put on trial.

 

[CitizenKain]

For some reason its ok for muslims to kill each other, and to kill others. But if someone else kills a muslim, expect a crap storm to follow.

Some suicide bomber walks into a market, kills innocent civilians, women and children included, and for some reason that barely makes the news. But when a US solider kills some so called "innocents", holy crap, let the storm begin.

When people in Iraq stop killing each other in the name of religion, then I think they have the right to point the finger at others. Lets not hold non-muslims to a different set of standards.

Yea, there is no reason we should be upset when a member of our armed forces kills civilians because he feels like it. I bet you think the guys involved in the My Lai massacre got a bad wrap too.

This marine should be sent back to Iraq and let the locals take care of him, he doesn't deserve to live in this country anymore.

 

[Texashiker]

More dehumanizing people lies. No, it's NOT 'ok' for Muslims to kill each other or others - you are lying, and your lies are leading you to then falsely claim it's hypocritical for criticizing the murder of Muslims. Your logic is to lie that people say they're allowed to murder no problem - and you use that lie to say murdering those people is ok. Immoral scum.

According to sharia law, muslims are supposed to kill anyone who does not follow islam.

Depending on what version of islam you follow, you might even be required to kill other muslims.

So how am I lying or "dehumanizing people"?

 

[Craig234]

Okay, first off all this happened in foreign land. So laws of the US really don't apply over there. He would have to normally face the laws of the land he broke where he was caught. But since he was in the military and over there for deployment then we subject him and others with him to the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice).

Usually the UCMJ is quite severe as commanders typically want to make examples of idiots for the littlest thing. That is usually the case. Trials by the UCMJ are not like trials in a normal criminal court case. Nor can he be tried in a normal criminal court case here in the states.

Still, the fact is we don't know all the reasonings behind this case. Was him and his squad told that the entire town was hostile and to proceed with extreme prejudice? In which case his actions were based solely off the information and directions provided to him by superiors. Which doesn't negate the fact that he DID those things, but that he was still following orders to a point. In a war it is harder to judge good lawful orders from bad ones that shouldn't be followed. Strange as it seems, the movie "A Few Good Men" had quite a decent plot involving a scenario of marines just following orders that should be questioned instead. But it's really hard to question orders from a higher officer. Why? In peacetime if you question orders that turn out to be lawful then you can be subject to a court martial and drummed out at best. In war time? You can be executed for treason.

From my experience if he has his sentenced cut then it was probably because he was following orders at the time. Bad order, but doing what he was told.

If this had been orders from above, then the story got it wrong - saying it was him who gave the bad orders and admitted it, not a word about coming from above; and I doubt it would have gotten this far as a prosecution if that were the case; and finally there would be a serious lack of justice for his superiors if that happened.

I think you are not only making things up but doing so in contradiction to what evidence we do have from the reporting.

I see a pattern - look at that helicopter killing Wikileaks exposed - reportedly no one was convicted of anything for that. There seems to be a pattern of lenience.

It's a shame for our country to have this happen and to light punishment accepted.

I'm sympathetic to 'it's war' up to a point, but there's a point where we need to prevent these wrongs.

Fact is, IMO, our media is part of the problem - we see no reporting sympathetic to the victims and families and friends to better appreciate the harm. They're invisible.

All the sympathy is aimed towards the troops, so the public is more accepting of excuses for wrongs.

 

[Craig234]

According to sharia law, muslims are supposed to kill anyone who does not follow islam.

Your lies promoting bigotry reinforce the correctness of labeling you immoral scum.

Perhaps you would like to explain millions of Muslims living in the US no doing that.

But actually, don't bother, you have clearly shown that there is no discussion of the issue with you and any response would be a piece of trash. Don't bother.

So how am I lying or "dehumanizing people"?

I explained it; you don't get it; it's a waste of time to repeat it. Re-read the post.

 

[Craig234]

The Nuremberg Trials set a legal precedent, "following orders" is no defense when it comes to crimes against humanity.

If the solider was "following orders", then his superiors should also be put on trial.

Well, that's a change - it seems that when not misrepresenting Muslims you have some appreciation of the issues for our military. I agree with this post.

 

[Whiskey16]

For some reason its ok for muslims to kill each other, and to kill others. But if someone else kills a muslim, expect a crap storm to follow.

Yes, thanks Anders Breivik doctrine. Muslims are evil and the enemy. They and their supporters are justified targets.

The Stormfront similarities surface again on Anandtech.

You believe that the US forces needed not distinguish who their targets were as, the enemy are Muslims, and damaging Muslims is the goal. Civilians be damned -- dirty, evil, Muslims, the lot if them.

Texashiker, you are one sick and violent extremist.

 

[JTsyo]

For some reason its ok for muslims to kill each other, and to kill others. But if someone else kills a muslim, expect a crap storm to follow.

Some suicide bomber walks into a market, kills innocent civilians, women and children included, and for some reason that barely makes the news. But when a US solider kills some so called "innocents", holy crap, let the storm begin.

When people in Iraq stop killing each other in the name of religion, then I think they have the right to point the finger at others. Lets not hold non-muslims to a different set of standards.

Yes, I'm sure if the US got their hands on the guy that made a bomb that someone used to blow up a market, they would give him a plea deal and 3 months in prison. 🙄

 

[cybrsage]

More dehumanizing people lies. No, it's NOT 'ok' for Muslims to kill each other or others - you are lying, and your lies are leading you to then falsely claim it's hypocritical for criticizing the murder of Muslims. Your logic is to lie that people say they're allowed to murder no problem - and you use that lie to say murdering those people is ok. Immoral scum.

Actually, it is, but only if the other Muslim is considered an apostate (which then makes him a non-Muslim to the ones who consider him an apostate).

In the non-Sunni Islam world, we view both Sunni and Shia as two sects of Islam - all followers are Muslim. To the devout Sunnis, the Shiites are apostates and therefor not only not Muslims but are actively trying to destroy Islam and therefor should be killed.

This is why you see so many bombs going off in and around Shia mosques.

 

[Texashiker]

Texashiker, you are one sick and violent extremist.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Muslims are instructed by sharia law to kill non-muslims.

But when non-muslims kill muslims, expect a crap storm to follow.

 

[Whiskey16]

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Muslims are instructed by sharia law to kill non-muslims.

But when non-muslims kill muslims, expect a crap storm to follow.

Clear advocacy for violence upon Muslims.

An incite to crime.

The extreme of hate speech.

Damn, the sooner this forum gets cleaned up the better.

 

[HumblePie]

The Nuremberg Trials set a legal precedent, "following orders" is no defense when it comes to crimes against humanity.

If the solider was "following orders", then his superiors should also be put on trial.

I never stated it was. I said that he is STILL SUBJECT to disciplinary action under the UCMJ even if he was "just following orders" from a superior. I said the reduced sentencing may be in part of that. That would be the only plea bargain I think he could get away with. Which is providing evidence the convict someone higher up on the totem pole.

 

[Craig234]

I never stated it was. I said that he is STILL SUBJECT to disciplinary action under the UCMJ even if he was "just following orders" from a superior. I said the reduced sentencing may be in part of that. That would be the only plea bargain I think he could get away with. Which is providing evidence the convict someone higher up on the totem pole.

There is zero indication the please was for that reason or there are more prosecutions.