• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This Blackwater crime just isn't going away

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
This thread is getting way off topic.

These mercenaries / contractors should be held to trial to prove their innocence. There is enough evidence to bring them to trial, based on OUR judicial system.
In "OUR judicial system," we tend to have trials to prove someone's guilt, not their innocence...

Freudian slip perhaps?

If they are innocent, the evidence and argument (or lack there of) will set them free, same for all US citizens.
You're assuming 1) the Iraqis performed a proper forensic investigation, and 2) the BW employees would receive a fair trial.

Neither of those being the case, what would you suggest?

Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued.

Based on your reply, I can only assume that you are a die hard republican and have already chosen a side... "anything USA vs. Them"

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."

I understand that many don't want to believe that our citizens are capable of such horrendous crimes, but it does happen. It is our job to weed out those crazies that happen to become employed by the govt.


Is there zero crime in the US? No.
What makes people think that there would be no crime committed by US citizens outside the country?
 
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued.
I do agree that an inquiry and finding should be had; and, based on the results, hopefully they put measures in place to properly protect and prosecute in the future. However, given the lack of a proper investigation in this incident, I do not believe the BW employees would receive a fair trial if that is the intent.

Based on your reply, I can only assume that you are a die hard republican and have already chosen a side... "anything USA vs. Them"
Based on your reply, I csan only assume that you're an idiot. 1) I'm not a "die hard" anything, let alone a republican. 2)There are no partisan "sides" in this issue - it should have nothing to do with US partisan politics. I'm pretty damn sure every "side" respects our expectations for a fair trial.

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are not sufficient for a genuinely fair trial.

I understand that many don't want to believe that our citizens are capable of such horrendous crimes, but it does happen. It is our job to weed out those crazies that happen to become employed by the govt.
true enough; but, when we do, we need to provide them with the same fair trial any US citizen deserves.

Do you disagree?

Is there zero crime in the US? No.
relevance?
What makes people think that there would be no crime committed by US citizens outside the country?
whoever said such a stupid thing?

Where did you come up with that sh*t?

 
Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. We don't just "have trials". There needs to be an investigation etc. Remember the Duke lacross debacle? There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued. What evidence? All I've heard of is allagations so far. I'm not saying there isn't any eveidence, just I haven't seen it.

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."

The investigation leading to a trial would bring about forensic evidence, not a trial.

I think any Iraqis testifying in a trial is gonna be difficult. Translators needed etc. And there'sjust a lot of complications aside from teh language barrier
.

-snip-

I see this as too problematic for a trial. We don't just have trials to appease interest.

I don't see how the rules of evidence can reasonably be adhered to, etc. Then there are likely jurisdictional issues. While my reading of the CPA Order suggests that he US has jurisdiction, Congress isn't sure. This will likely be litigated etc to death.

The CPA was not a treaty, nor AFAIK was it ratified by the Senate. So, it may not be valid for US purposes.

The one good thing that could come from this is a focus on Order 7 and getting things cleared up and cleaned up as to juridiction and rules of conduct etc.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

If I remember that incident correctly, this was during a fairly intense battle around Fallujah. The man in question was found in a building/mosque that they had been taking fire from. This group of soldiers had lost a fellow soldier just a day or so before because an insurgent/terrorist/whatever pretended he was dead and then killed a soldier and wounders others who came to inspect the body. Brutality? No. It's called surviving the horrors of war and the tactics of the enemy.

So it was ok to shoot him right? I see. We've gone down to the level of the insurgents. You must be so proud.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Stoneburner

blackangst, what do you call a private army for hire? MERCENARIES.

Private security != Mercenaries.

If you have some evidence that BW et al are running ops other than security I might be inclined to agree with you. Otherwise, they are no more mercenaries than other armed security guards one can see in the USA.

Fern

So to be a mercenary you have to run operations other than security? That's a dumb statement comsidering all private military contractors (and the military) is about security. That's all they do. Trying to stretch things a bit too far huh?

Nope, the miliary's job is to kill people and blow sh!t up. Fight & attack. Security is different matter with different objectives etc.

Fern

Wrong, the military's job is for defense, not to kill people and blow things up. I hate to say this but you have the mind of a child.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. We don't just "have trials". There needs to be an investigation etc. Remember the Duke lacross debacle? There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued. What evidence? All I've heard of is allagations so far. I'm not saying there isn't any eveidence, just I haven't seen it.

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."

The investigation leading to a trial would bring about forensic evidence, not a trial.

I think any Iraqis testifying in a trial is gonna be difficult. Translators needed etc. And there'sjust a lot of complications aside from teh language barrier
.

-snip-



I see this as too problematic for a trial. We don't just have trials to appease interest.

I don't see how the rules of evidence can reasonably be adhered to, etc. Then there are likely jurisdictional issues. While my reading of the CPA Order suggests that he US has jurisdiction, Congress isn't sure. This will likely be litigated etc to death.

The CPA was not a treaty, nor AFAIK was it ratified by the Senate. So, it may not be valid for US purposes.

The one good thing that could come from this is a focus on Order 7 and getting things cleared up and cleaned up as to juridiction and rules of conduct etc.

Fern

It is better to use what tools are at hand rather then ignore the incident completely. There has to be some higher power held responsible for these incidents that require oversight.

If there are none in place, well... these proceedings are aide to bringing about proper oversight for such incidents.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued.
I do agree that an inquiry and finding should be had; and, based on the results, hopefully they put measures in place to properly protect and prosecute in the future. However, given the lack of a proper investigation in this incident, I do not believe the BW employees would receive a fair trial if that is the intent.

Based on your reply, I can only assume that you are a die hard republican and have already chosen a side... "anything USA vs. Them"
Based on your reply, I csan only assume that you're an idiot. 1) I'm not a "die hard" anything, let alone a republican. 2)There are no partisan "sides" in this issue - it should have nothing to do with US partisan politics. I'm pretty damn sure every "side" respects our expectations for a fair trial.

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are not sufficient for a genuinely fair trial.

I understand that many don't want to believe that our citizens are capable of such horrendous crimes, but it does happen. It is our job to weed out those crazies that happen to become employed by the govt.
true enough; but, when we do, we need to provide them with the same fair trial any US citizen deserves.

Do you disagree?

Is there zero crime in the US? No.
relevance?
What makes people think that there would be no crime committed by US citizens outside the country?
whoever said such a stupid thing?

Where did you come up with that sh*t?

Based on what you say, you seem to be too "true" of a patriot to have a clear mind on the subject.

Name calling and complete dismissal of obvious facts aren't valid arguing points to give a free "get out of jail card" to murderers just because they are in a contested region of the world.

People do bad stuff. Letting it continue without a care is a step back.

What if these mercenaries actually did have murderous intentions and were able to get away with pursuing such heinous sins? At this point, there is no credible oversight to punish these contractors that MY tax dollars help pay for.

I don't want MY money going toward overpaid mercs that kill innocent civilians. And if I have a doubt in my mind that they did do a crime, I want my govt that I employ to pursue a means to create oversight for such incidents.


Continue with the name calling, I understand what forum I am on. I won't reply to you again.
 
How can you "pro-military" "Republicans" defend Blackwater's or any other mercenary/security group in Iraq's recklessness which claims civilian lives? To the Iraqi civilians the armed contractors are the most hated and feared element in Iraq which Americans have direct control over, maybe even more hated/feared than the insurgents. Every time they kill Iraqi civilians and walk away with no repercussions they undermine America's mission there. We will never win hearts and minds if we think we can cavalierly go around killing Iraqis in the process of "bringing them democracy."

The mentality seems to be "well the Hajiis are stupid and get in the way of convoys and it will take many broken eggs to make an omelet." Well that's a sick fvcking mentality and unfitting of an American. Why do so many people hate the troops and our mission in Iraq, by continuing to make excuses for needless deaths which are guaranteed to create more insurgents? Just because you sweat Blackwater's nuts because they are running around playing army and making lots of money?
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did you know that not a single one of the bodies was autopsied, and that the only evidence against them is a hodge-podge of "eye-witness accounts"?

Remember, these are American veterans you're sending to the guillotines without proper investigative and forensic techniques, or a fair trial.

So try not to gloat so much you sick F$#%...

Americans bleed like other human beings. They're not special. Besides, justice is blind, right? I will be glued to my television the day they are about to be hanged and yell "Moqtada" like they did at Hussein's death march. TBH, I care about Hussein as much as I care about these mercernaries, which is less than I worry about the cyst in Rush's asshole.

:music:The Executioner's Song:music:.

Americans are special. Our lives are worth more than those of a few Iraquis. The fact that you would cheer the death of American soldiers is chilling.

It is very refreshing seeing some one call the US Über Alles faction for what it is. In fact I think you are a parody poster of the position people like Palehorse, Tasteslikechicken etc have. Except of course the latter ones don't have the guts to admit it straight out.

I'm not a parody poster, just a straight shooter who's not ashamed to be against the poor, in favor of emperialism (so long as it benefits us) and a champion of Americans' constitutional rights.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did you know that not a single one of the bodies was autopsied, and that the only evidence against them is a hodge-podge of "eye-witness accounts"?

Remember, these are American veterans you're sending to the guillotines without proper investigative and forensic techniques, or a fair trial.

So try not to gloat so much you sick F$#%...

Americans bleed like other human beings. They're not special. Besides, justice is blind, right? I will be glued to my television the day they are about to be hanged and yell "Moqtada" like they did at Hussein's death march. TBH, I care about Hussein as much as I care about these mercernaries, which is less than I worry about the cyst in Rush's asshole.

:music:The Executioner's Song:music:.

Americans are special. Our lives are worth more than those of a few Iraquis. The fact that you would cheer the death of American soldiers is chilling.

It is very refreshing seeing some one call the US Über Alles faction for what it is. In fact I think you are a parody poster of the position people like Palehorse, Tasteslikechicken etc have. Except of course the latter ones don't have the guts to admit it straight out.

I'm not a parody poster, just a straight shooter who's not ashamed to be against the poor, in favor of emperialism (so long as it benefits us) and a champion of Americans' constitutional rights.

Those two are contradictory.
 
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Given the international attention, there should be a trial of some sort. There is enough evidence and scrutiny on the subject that some sort of oversight (investigation) needs to be pursued.
I do agree that an inquiry and finding should be had; and, based on the results, hopefully they put measures in place to properly protect and prosecute in the future. However, given the lack of a proper investigation in this incident, I do not believe the BW employees would receive a fair trial if that is the intent.

Based on your reply, I can only assume that you are a die hard republican and have already chosen a side... "anything USA vs. Them"
Based on your reply, I csan only assume that you're an idiot. 1) I'm not a "die hard" anything, let alone a republican. 2)There are no partisan "sides" in this issue - it should have nothing to do with US partisan politics. I'm pretty damn sure every "side" respects our expectations for a fair trial.

But be more open-minded. A trial will bring about forensic investigation (if any evidence is left). If there is none, well that still does not discount any wrongdoing. Eye witness accounts are considered potential evidence and with proper interrogation in a court room will be seen as valid or "BS."
Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are not sufficient for a genuinely fair trial.

I understand that many don't want to believe that our citizens are capable of such horrendous crimes, but it does happen. It is our job to weed out those crazies that happen to become employed by the govt.
true enough; but, when we do, we need to provide them with the same fair trial any US citizen deserves.

Do you disagree?

Is there zero crime in the US? No.
relevance?
What makes people think that there would be no crime committed by US citizens outside the country?
whoever said such a stupid thing?

Where did you come up with that sh*t?

Based on what you say, you seem to be too "true" of a patriot to have a clear mind on the subject.

Name calling and complete dismissal of obvious facts aren't valid arguing points to give a free "get out of jail card" to murderers just because they are in a contested region of the world.

People do bad stuff. Letting it continue without a care is a step back.

What if these mercenaries actually did have murderous intentions and were able to get away with pursuing such heinous sins? At this point, there is no credible oversight to punish these contractors that MY tax dollars help pay for.

I don't want MY money going toward overpaid mercs that kill innocent civilians. And if I have a doubt in my mind that they did do a crime, I want my govt that I employ to pursue a means to create oversight for such incidents.


Continue with the name calling, I understand what forum I am on. I won't reply to you again.

What if they didnt? you dont friggin know. Why you presume guilt before innocence?
 
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Based on what you say, you seem to be too "true" of a patriot to have a clear mind on the subject.
OK, wtf does that mean in English?

Name calling and complete dismissal of obvious facts aren't valid arguing points to give a free "get out of jail card" to murderers just because they are in a contested region of the world.
exactly which "facts" are "obvious" to you?

People do bad stuff. Letting it continue without a care is a step back.
I guess you missed the part in every post I've made here that clearly calls for changing the way we do business and installing attribution to cover - and perhaps prosecute - all future incidents.

What if these mercenaries actually did have murderous intentions and were able to get away with pursuing such heinous sins? At this point, there is no credible oversight to punish these contractors that MY tax dollars help pay for.
Correct, which is why the ONLY thing that should come from this one incident is the installment of processes that, in the future, help prosecute any true criminals.

I don't want MY money going toward overpaid mercs that kill innocent civilians. And if I have a doubt in my mind that they did do a crime, I want my govt that I employ to pursue a means to create oversight for such incidents.
now we're getting somewhere. As you can clearly see by now - I hope - I agree that such processes need to be put in place.

Continue with the name calling, I understand what forum I am on. I won't reply to you again.
That would be a real shame since you were just starting to understand and figure things out...

 
What if they didnt? you dont friggin know. Why you presume guilt before innocence

Please disregard any statement posted by blackangster. He really doesn't have a grasp on logic, history, and deductive reasoning.

I doubt that the company will be prosecuted under this administration, both the Justice and State Department are controlled by the bush/cheney fascistic executive.

Rogo
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
I'm not a parody poster, just a straight shooter who's not ashamed to be against the poor, in favor of emperialism (so long as it benefits us) and a champion of Americans' constitutional rights.

Not a big fan of spellcheck, I rectum . . . .

 
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
What if they didnt? you dont friggin know. Why you presume guilt before innocence

Please disregard any statement posted by blackangster. He really doesn't have a grasp on logic, history, and deductive reasoning.

I doubt that the company will be prosecuted under this administration, both the Justice and State Department are controlled by the bush/cheney fascistic executive.

Rogo

Riiight. Youre just waiting for the Democrats to save the day lol

Fool.
 
Update your story. Another private merc company "( A Aussie company this time ) fubar's their convoy misson and kills 2 innocent women just after the Iraqi's tell Blackwater to leave.

Guards fire on car in Iraq, kill 2 women

BAGHDAD - Guards working for an Australian-owned security company fired on a car as it approached their convoy Tuesday, killing two women civilians before speeding away from the latest bloodshed blamed on the deadly mix of heavily armed protection details on Baghdad's crowded streets.
ADVERTISEMENT

The deaths of the two Iraqi Christians ? including one who used the white sedan as an unofficial taxi to raise money for her family ? came a day after the Iraqi government handed U.S. officials a report demanding hefty payments and the ouster from Iraq of embattled Blackwater USA for a chaotic shooting last month that left at least 17 civilians dead.

The deaths Tuesday at a Baghdad intersection may sharpen demands to curb the expanding array of security firms in Iraq watching over diplomats, aid groups and others.

"We deeply regret this incident," said a statement from Michael Priddin, the chief operating officer of Unity Resources Group, a security company owned by Australian partners but with headquarters in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

Priddin said the company would disclose more details of the shooting after "the facts have been verified and the necessary people and authorities notified." Priddin would not comment on whether his guards killed the women.

But initial accounts ? from company statements, witnesses and others ? suggested the guards opened fire as the car failed to heed warnings to stop and drifted closer to the convoy near a Unity facility in central Baghdad's Karrahah district.

It was not immediately clear whether the guards were protecting a client at the time, but a group that uses its security agents said its personnel were not at the scene.

Four armored SUVs ? three white and one gray ? were about 100 yards from a main intersection in the Shiite-controlled district. As the car, a white Oldsmobile, moved into the crossroads, the Unity guards threw a smoke bomb in an apparent bid to warn the car not to come closer, said Riyadh Majid, an Iraqi policeman who saw the shooting.

Two of the Unity guards then opened fire. The woman driving the car tried to stop, but was killed along with her passenger. Two of three people in the back seat were wounded.

Priddin's statement offers a similar account: "The first information that we have is that our security team was approached at speed by a vehicle which failed to stop despite an escalation of warnings which included hand signals and a signal flare. Finally shots were fired at the vehicle and it stopped."

Iraqi police investigators said they collected 19 spent 5.56mm shell casings, ammunition commonly used by U.S. and NATO forces and most Western security organizations. The pavement was stained with blood and covered with shattered glass from the car windows.

Majid said the convoy raced away after the shooting. Iraqi police came to collect the bodies and tow the car to the local station.

A second policeman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retribution, said the guards were masked and wearing khaki uniforms. He said one of them left the vehicle and started to shoot at the car while another opened fire from the open back door of a separate SUV.

The victims were identified by relatives and police as Marou Awanis, born in 1959, and Geneva Jalal, born in 1977. Awanis' sister-in-law, Anahet Bougous, said the woman had been using her car to drive government employees to work to help raise money for her three daughters. Her husband died during heart surgery last year.

"May God take revenge on those killers," Bougous said, crying outside the police station. "Now, who is going to raise them?"

"These are innocent people killed by people who have no heart or consciousness. The Iraqi people have no value to them," said a man who was part of a group of relatives gathered with a Christian priest at the local police station.

Iraqi anger has grown against the private security companies ? nearly all based in the United States, Britian and other Western countries ? as symbols of the lawlessness that has ravaged their country for more than four years.

Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq's government spokesman, said: "Today's incident is part of a series of reckless actions by some security companies."

An Iraqi investigation of the Blackwater shooting on Sept. 16 was ordered by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and called for the company to pay $8 million in compensation to the families of each of the 17 victims. The commission also said Blackwater guards had killed 21 other Iraqis in past incidents since it began protecting American diplomats in Iraq shortly after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Unity also has come under scrutiny before.

In March 2006, the company issued an statement of sympathy after one of its guards was blamed for shooting a 72-year-old Iraqi-born Australian, Kays Juma, at a security checkpoint in Baghdad.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Juma was killed because he was in a car that failed to stop. Unity said multi-national forces and Iraqi police also were present at the checkpoint at the time.

Unity provides armed guards and security training throughout Iraq. Its heavily armed teams are Special Forces veterans from Australia, the United States, New Zealand and Britain ? as well as former law enforcement officers from those countries.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the shooting did not involve U.S. diplomats. "It was not an American convoy," he said.

RTI International, a group based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., that promotes governance projects in Iraq, said Unity was providing security for the group but none of its staff members "were involved or present when the incident occurred."

The group said Unity was fully cooperating with Iraqi and U.S. officials investigating the incident.

"We are deeply saddened by this loss of life," RTI spokesman Patrick Gibbons said in a statement. "While we have every reason to believe that proper security protocols were followed, that is a matter to be determined by the investigation."

In other violence across Iraq, at least 57 Iraqis were found dead or killed in bombings and shootings.

In Beiji, an oil hub 155 miles north of Baghdad, two suicide bombers drove a minibus laden with explosives into the house of a local police chief and detonated an explosives-packed Toyota Land Cruiser outside the home of a leading member of the local Awakening Council, a group of Iraqis who have turned against al-Qaida in Iraq extremists in the area.

Police in Beiji said at least 19 died in the attacks, which badly damaged a Sunni mosque about 100 yards away from the police chief's house. Three guards there were among the dead. The men targeted in the attacks were not killed, police said.

In Baghdad, a series of four car bombs killed 16.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
They are almost guaranteed to face criminal prosecution either in Iraq or America. I pray to God that they get Iraqi justice. You can lose your head over it but I remember George Bush praising it last year when Hussein was hanged.

He's a moron. I wouldn't respect anything he praises.

Sorry, I don't favor anything Iraqi that involves their law over Americans. Iraq law is criminal in itself. There is no such thing as an appeal at all. So once found guilty you are as good as dead. Even if you get sent to prison, they can pull you back and give you the death penalty instead.

Plus, I've seen what happens to women over there. Enough disgusting stoning videos to scar someone for life. Iraq and it's people are a disgusting and uncivilized society. The only reason that the US military and Blackwater is over there is to protect Bush's little money pit. Don't favor seeing Americans suffer so Bush gets more cash in his pocket after his Presidency is over.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Nebor
in favor of emperialism (so long as it benefits us) and a champion of Americans' constitutional rights.

Those two are contradictory.

No they aren't.

Nothing in the Constitution forbids imperialism, or grants foreign countries some right against US imperialism.

The USA actually had a fairly brief period in the past where imperalism was pursued as a national policy. If it was unconstitutional, we couldn't have done it.

If you've got some eveidence of your claim (like a SCOTUS case), I'll be happy to read it.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

If I remember that incident correctly, this was during a fairly intense battle around Fallujah. The man in question was found in a building/mosque that they had been taking fire from. This group of soldiers had lost a fellow soldier just a day or so before because an insurgent/terrorist/whatever pretended he was dead and then killed a soldier and wounders others who came to inspect the body. Brutality? No. It's called surviving the horrors of war and the tactics of the enemy.

So it was ok to shoot him right? I see. We've gone down to the level of the insurgents. You must be so proud.

You have no idea what combat during a battle entails do you? It is simply kill the enemy or be killed yourself. Our soldiers are under a tremendous amount of pressure with lots of rules in a battlespace where the enemy hides among civilians, has no rule against what tactics can be used and has no compunction against killing innocents.

If just the day before members of your squad had been killed by a man pretending to be dead, what exactly would you do when you enter a building that you were receiving fire from and came across a man that looks like he is pretending to be dead? Read him rights? Sit down and share a smoke with him? Hardly. War is a fvcked up situation more often than not and it is definitely brutal.

I'll give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt though over a bunch of sick maniacs that put children in cars loaded with explosives and other similar crap.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
After the Haditha massacre that wasn't, you'll have to forgive me if I want to wait before I'm ready to string up everyone involved.

I doubt the Haditha incident changed your mind...It was made up long ago.

Let's see....charges in the Haditha case were being dropped earlier this year with many questions about the veracity of the charges long before that. Blackwater incident just happened within the last couple of months.

Yep, Haditha massacre that wasn't definitely happened long before the alleged Blackwater incident(s).

I'll give you a simple example of the brutality of American soldiers in iraq. About a month ago ABC News was showing what Americans saw regarding the Iraq war and what Arabs. For America, it showed brave Americans feeding hungry children and caring for the poor. For international audience it showed Americans walking through a house full of bodies. There was an Iraqi man lying on the ground breathing a little but his face was not moving. An American soldier sees him and says "He's pretending he's dead, Sarge." "He's pretending he's dead." He then points his M16 towards the head of the Iraqi and shoot him and says "He's dead now." That's what Americans don't see about this war.

If I remember that incident correctly, this was during a fairly intense battle around Fallujah. The man in question was found in a building/mosque that they had been taking fire from. This group of soldiers had lost a fellow soldier just a day or so before because an insurgent/terrorist/whatever pretended he was dead and then killed a soldier and wounders others who came to inspect the body. Brutality? No. It's called surviving the horrors of war and the tactics of the enemy.

So it was ok to shoot him right? I see. We've gone down to the level of the insurgents. You must be so proud.

You have no idea what combat during a battle entails do you? It is simply kill the enemy or be killed yourself. Our soldiers are under a tremendous amount of pressure with lots of rules in a battlespace where the enemy hides among civilians, has no rule against what tactics can be used and has no compunction against killing innocents.

If just the day before members of your squad had been killed by a man pretending to be dead, what exactly would you do when you enter a building that you were receiving fire from and came across a man that looks like he is pretending to be dead? Read him rights? Sit down and share a smoke with him? Hardly. War is a fvcked up situation more often than not and it is definitely brutal.

I'll give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt though over a bunch of sick maniacs that put children in cars loaded with explosives and other similar crap.

Making excuses for them doesn't excuse them for comitting a crime. Let me get this straight. If an American soldier got blown to hell by a man wearing a yellow jacket, does that give them the right to shoot people wearing yellow jackets? The obvious answer is no. No matter how emotional you are, you simply do not kill somebody that poses no threat to you.

Maybe you or I aren't being clear. Are you defending them because you understand what they're going through or are you saying it was legal?
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Making excuses for them doesn't excuse them for comitting a crime. Let me get this straight. If an American soldier got blown to hell by a man wearing a yellow jacket, does that give them the right to shoot people wearing yellow jackets? The obvious answer is no. No matter how emotional you are, you simply do not kill somebody that poses no threat to you.

The obvious answer is no because the situation you presented is ridiculous and has no bearing at all to a terrorist/insurgent/whatever playing possum trying to kill US troops.

Maybe you or I aren't being clear. Are you defending them because you understand what they're going through or are you saying it was legal?

Both. I understand what they are going through and an investigation was done on the shooting involving the soldier in question and he was cleared.

Same thing should happen with this Blackwater thing. Investigations should be performed on what happened and the people involved. If a court preceding is justified to determine their guilt or innocence, go ahead with that.

Same thing that happened to the Haditha Marines. An investigation was done and they were ultimately cleared of the charges....this was AFTER they had already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Making excuses for them doesn't excuse them for comitting a crime. Let me get this straight. If an American soldier got blown to hell by a man wearing a yellow jacket, does that give them the right to shoot people wearing yellow jackets? The obvious answer is no. No matter how emotional you are, you simply do not kill somebody that poses no threat to you.

The obvious answer is no because the situation you presented is ridiculous and has no bearing at all to a terrorist/insurgent/whatever playing possum trying to kill US troops.

Maybe you or I aren't being clear. Are you defending them because you understand what they're going through or are you saying it was legal?

Both. I understand what they are going through and an investigation was done on the shooting involving the soldier in question and he was cleared.

Same thing should happen with this Blackwater thing. Investigations should be performed on what happened and the people involved. If a court preceding is justified to determine their guilt or innocence, go ahead with that.

Same thing that happened to the Haditha Marines. An investigation was done and they were ultimately cleared of the charges....this was AFTER they had already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

Well, I don't know if you're telling me is true considering I only saw that video and the soldier shot a guy that posed no threat to him. If you can dig up the court results it'd be more than helpful.

As for the BW case, it's funny how people like you are calling for an investigation now when they've been doing shit like this for years with zero oversight. Investigation my ass, if anything, the interested parties will try to cover this up like they did when the BW mercenary shot and killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi VP last year. Justice is a joke when it comes to these mercenaries.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Narmer
Making excuses for them doesn't excuse them for comitting a crime. Let me get this straight. If an American soldier got blown to hell by a man wearing a yellow jacket, does that give them the right to shoot people wearing yellow jackets? The obvious answer is no. No matter how emotional you are, you simply do not kill somebody that poses no threat to you.

The obvious answer is no because the situation you presented is ridiculous and has no bearing at all to a terrorist/insurgent/whatever playing possum trying to kill US troops.

Maybe you or I aren't being clear. Are you defending them because you understand what they're going through or are you saying it was legal?

Both. I understand what they are going through and an investigation was done on the shooting involving the soldier in question and he was cleared.

Same thing should happen with this Blackwater thing. Investigations should be performed on what happened and the people involved. If a court preceding is justified to determine their guilt or innocence, go ahead with that.

Same thing that happened to the Haditha Marines. An investigation was done and they were ultimately cleared of the charges....this was AFTER they had already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

Well, I don't know if you're telling me is true considering I only saw that video and the soldier shot a guy that posed no threat to him. If you can dig up the court results it'd be more than helpful.

Quick Google of "Fallujah Shooting Investigation" brought up the following:

Link

CBS News says it has learned that military investigators have concluded insufficient evidence existed to formally charge the marine.

Link

Self-defense could be accepted
The Marine who shot the man was removed from the field and returned to headquarters. The investigation will address why the wounded men were left behind for 24 hours, why four of them were shot Saturday and whether the killing observed by Sites was illegal.

At the same time the incident was taking place in the mosque, a U.S. Marine was killed and five others were wounded when the booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. The judge advocate general heading the investigation of the mosque incident, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude that the Marine was acting in self-defense.

?The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,? he said. ?So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes.?

But Miller added: ?Enemy combatants ? in this case, insurgents ? who don?t pose a threat would not be considered a hostile.?

So yeah. If you want an analogy, this would be like a cop shooting a suspect who is acting suspiciously while holding an object that looks like a gun. Tragic and it sucks but it is just one of those crappy things that happen.
 
Thanks for the links. But it's obvious that the military fucked up on that one. I saw the video and the soldier wasn't suspicious of the wounded iraqi. He thought the iraqi was pretending to be dead. He then shot him. That there's a video of this and this guy wasn't put in jail is testimony of the joke that is American justice in Iraq. Did you see the video? The soldier sounded amused.
 
Back
Top