*Uncensored* video of the wounded Iraqi

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito
This certainly looks to me like murder, and a war crime to boot. I've worked as a military defense attorney, and IMO there's simply no way the USMC can let this go - this guy can and should be taken to a General Court-Martial. The insurgent was wounded, unarmed, and posed no threat to the Marine. Combat stress is not a defense to the crime of murder, though it will be relevant in sentencing if he's convicted.

Frankly I imagine this kind of shooting is common, but it's not legally excusable.

I fail to see how the "liberal media" have anything to do with this being newsworthy - the Marine was the one who elected to shoot an unarmed, wounded opponent with a video camera running. His military career is probably not paramount among his worries at this point, because with or without the media, he'd still be looking at spending the rest of his life in prison.

DonVito, how can you say with certainty that at the time of the shooting the enemy combatant posed no threat?

Do you think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail?

Next time you watch the video, open your eyes.

Are you DonVito?

 

[conjur]

No, but I'm someone with a brain.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Since these insurgents aren't following any rules, our soldiers have to improvise, overcome and adapt.

SO basically you want the US to stoop to their level? We don't have that right because we're not defending ourselves and its not our country. If we are doing this for the good of Iraq we need to set an example and abide by the rules of war.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Link

Judge for yourself.

We need to get these reporters out of there....

We need to let the Marines work unfettered.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Since these insurgents aren't following any rules, our soldiers have to improvise, overcome and adapt.

SO basically you want the US to stoop to their level? We don't have that right because we're not defending ourselves and its not our country. If we are doing this for the good of Iraq we need to set an example and abide by the rules of war.

If you expect that, then expect more dead marines, unless of course that is your goal.

We must let the Marines show no pity, no mercy and most important have no regret.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Link

Judge for yourself.

We need to get these reporters out of there....

We need to let the Marines work unfettered.

Why not? Let the Marines commit atrocities. BTW, GoPackGo:

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Go To this Website


MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.


KERRY COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

So, in your opinion, it's ok to commit war crimes as long as it suits your agenda?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Since these insurgents aren't following any rules, our soldiers have to improvise, overcome and adapt.

SO basically you want the US to stoop to their level? We don't have that right because we're not defending ourselves and its not our country. If we are doing this for the good of Iraq we need to set an example and abide by the rules of war.

If you expect that, then expect more dead marines, unless of course that is your goal.

We must let the Marines show no pity, no mercy and most important have no regret.

If all you want to do is save Marines life then maybe you could just nuke the whole country... Or KEEEP TTHEM IN AMERICA

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Since these insurgents aren't following any rules, our soldiers have to improvise, overcome and adapt.

SO basically you want the US to stoop to their level? We don't have that right because we're not defending ourselves and its not our country. If we are doing this for the good of Iraq we need to set an example and abide by the rules of war.

If you expect that, then expect more dead marines, unless of course that is your goal.

We must let the Marines show no pity, no mercy and most important have no regret.

If all you want to do is save Marines life then maybe you could just nuke the whole country... Or KEEEP TTHEM IN AMERICA

no, i want them to kill these people, since all they do is kill us and civilians.

Its time for everyone in Iraq to realize they either play ball or face the hardball.

The sooner they do, the better off they will be.

This all goes back to never getting a surrender.

Unfortunately they will have to be beaten into submission.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Reality sets in.

Yet another reason we should not have gone in because this and how many other incidents exactly like it are bound to happen. War sucks, and we entered it lightly. Unfortunately the Iraqis and our soldiers have to live with Bush's bad choices.

And the same people spouting off in defense of this cold-blooded murderer by saying it's war, think of the context, blah blah blah, are the same ones that denied atrocities occurred in Vietnam as described by Kerry and many others.

Guess this war is unique. :roll:

Conjur:

You really can't judge unless you have spent months and months in combat and are in a rough terrain where the enemy your fighting is NOT following the rules of war.

They are boobytrapping bodies and playing dead, pretending to surrender and then opening fire.

I'm sure after weeks of this type of combat you would probably just shoot first.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
You really can't judge unless you have spent months and months in combat and are in a rough terrain where the enemy your fighting is NOT following the rules of war.

They are boobytrapping bodies and playing dead, pretending to surrender and then opening fire.

I'm sure after weeks of this type of combat you would probably just shoot first.

I'm getting sick of this argument. Take it to its conclusion and you can't judge anybody unless you've been through exactly what they have. Please.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

DonVito, how can you say with certainty that at the time of the shooting the enemy combatant posed no threat?

Do you think that he should spend the rest of his life in jail?

I never said I could say anything with certainty about the case - I've seen the same video you have. On its face it appears to me to be murder. Legally, a wounded, unarmed enemy who is not demonstrating hostile intent is not fair game, and from what I could see, that guy was a badly hurt, older man who made no hostile gestures whatsoever.

Fortunately, unlike you or I, the judge or panel of members who hears this case will have the benefit of the testimony of a number of witnesses, and will have the opportunity to view diagrams of the scene, forensic evidence, and other relevant information in deciding whether this was murder. If they find him guilty, they will also decide on his sentence.

In general, the UCMJ does not create minimum sentences for crimes - only maximums. If he's convicted of premeditated homicide (which I don't tend to think he's guilty of), he will face a mandatory sentence of life without parole, but otherwise he may serve only a much shorter sentence. I once had a client who pled guilty to conspiracy at a General Court-Martial (aka GCM, essentially a felony-level trial), albeit in a much less serious case, and got only 45 days confinement.

For my part, I'm not comfortable making a sentence recommendation without knowing anything about the Marine or his case, but in general I think a life sentence would be excessive under the circumstances. If, hypothetically, he were convicted, I'd like to see him sentenced to maybe ten years, but again I think it's hasty to presume anything about the accused or the offense at this point.

Whatever the outcome, I think it's important that the Marine is at least charged with murder. That will start the court-martial process, but that alone doesn't mean it will go to trial - the case could be terminated after an Article 32 preliminary hearing. The US simply can't be perceived as giving its servicemen a pass when they are videotaped killing unarmed, wounded combatants - we have too much at stake in terms of international relations, and doing so would create further risk for our own troops.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Link

Judge for yourself.

We need to get these reporters out of there....

We need to let the Marines work unfettered.

Why not? Let the Marines commit atrocities. BTW, GoPackGo:

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Go To this Website


MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.


KERRY COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

So, in your opinion, it's ok to commit war crimes as long as it suits your agenda?

According to the blessed Geneva Convention, he did...but got a Silver Star for it. He may have thought he was doing the right thing, but shouldn't have done what he did when he got home...anyway, that argument is closed in my book since he lost the race...

As far as Iraq goes . . .
Look at this way, either the Marines adapt to the situation, or they will die trying to fight a "politically correct war"

Either we let them do their job, or bring them home.

War is Hell

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Reality sets in.

Yet another reason we should not have gone in because this and how many other incidents exactly like it are bound to happen. War sucks, and we entered it lightly. Unfortunately the Iraqis and our soldiers have to live with Bush's bad choices.

And the same people spouting off in defense of this cold-blooded murderer by saying it's war, think of the context, blah blah blah, are the same ones that denied atrocities occurred in Vietnam as described by Kerry and many others.

Guess this war is unique. :roll:

Conjur:

You really can't judge unless you have spent months and months in combat and are in a rough terrain where the enemy your fighting is NOT following the rules of war.

They are boobytrapping bodies and playing dead, pretending to surrender and then opening fire.

I'm sure after weeks of this type of combat you would probably just shoot first.

Perhaps I would. Wouldn't make it right, though, would it?

I also find the hypocricy amongst those up here who bashed Kerry for saying he participated in atrocities but excuse this Marine of the very same thing rather disgusting.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
no, i want them to kill these people

I thought we were in Iraq to help Iraqis, not kill them.

Its time for everyone in Iraq to realize they either play ball or face the hardball.

Play ball or face the hardball?

The sooner they do, the better off they will be.

So the sooner Iraqis die, the better off Iraq will be?

This all goes back to never getting a surrender.

Maybe they are afraid of being raped in a US prison?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Link

Judge for yourself.

We need to get these reporters out of there....

We need to let the Marines work unfettered.

Why not? Let the Marines commit atrocities. BTW, GoPackGo:

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Go To this Website


MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.


KERRY COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

So, in your opinion, it's ok to commit war crimes as long as it suits your agenda?

According to the blessed Geneva Convention, he did...but got a Silver Star for it. He may have thought he was doing the right thing, but shouldn't have done what he did when he got home...anyway, that argument is closed in my book since he lost the race...

As far as Iraq goes . . .
Look at this way, either the Marines adapt to the situation, or they will die trying to fight a "politically correct war"

Either we let them do their job, or bring them home.

War is Hell

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. You're for war crimes when it suits your agenda.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
no, i want them to kill these people

I thought we were in Iraq to help Iraqis, not kill them.

Its time for everyone in Iraq to realize they either play ball or face the hardball.

Play ball or face the hardball?

The sooner they do, the better off they will be.

So the sooner Iraqis die, the better off Iraq will be?

This all goes back to never getting a surrender.

Maybe they are afraid of being raped in a US prison?

Kill the insurgents...not all Iraqis...we could drop a neutron bomb on them if we wanted to do that.

The sooner change is accepted in Iraq, the better of they will be...but its up to them to decide what they want...war or peace? we can provide war, only they can provide peace.

The surrender I refer to is a national surrender, not individual, you know like after WW2? When Saddam was in his hole, he should have been forced to sign surrender documents or be shot in the head.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Link

Judge for yourself.

We need to get these reporters out of there....

We need to let the Marines work unfettered.

Why not? Let the Marines commit atrocities. BTW, GoPackGo:

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Go To this Website


MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.


KERRY COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

So, in your opinion, it's ok to commit war crimes as long as it suits your agenda?

According to the blessed Geneva Convention, he did...but got a Silver Star for it. He may have thought he was doing the right thing, but shouldn't have done what he did when he got home...anyway, that argument is closed in my book since he lost the race...

As far as Iraq goes . . .
Look at this way, either the Marines adapt to the situation, or they will die trying to fight a "politically correct war"

Either we let them do their job, or bring them home.

War is Hell

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. You're for war crimes when it suits your agenda.

I guess you are right...but then again...if we withdrew from the convention, then all is square.

Perhaps the UN could spend that 20billion coming up with something new.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Kill the insurgents...not all Iraqis...we could drop a neutron bomb on them if we wanted to do that.

But insurgets ARE Iraqis. Most of them anyway.

The sooner change is accepted in Iraq, the better of they will be...

Really? How do you know that?

only they can provide peace.

That's absurd. We could stop killing them and waging war on Iraq.

The surrender I refer to is a national surrender, not individual, you know like after WW2?

You can't get popular uprisings to surrender.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Kill the insurgents...not all Iraqis...we could drop a neutron bomb on them if we wanted to do that.

But insurgets ARE Iraqis. Most of them anyway.

The sooner change is accepted in Iraq, the better of they will be...

Really? How do you know that?

only they can provide peace.

That's absurd. We could stop killing them and waging war on Iraq.

The surrender I refer to is a national surrender, not individual, you know like after WW2?

You can't get popular uprisings to surrender.

Yes, but its only the insurgents I want eliminated.

I have an idea...lets leave now and see what happens...we could leave the reporters their and sell it on pay per view....

BTW, thanks for leaving out the part about getting saddam to sign the surrender document - perhaps the Sunnis would have been easier to deal with.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

The surrender I refer to is a national surrender, not individual, you know like after WW2? When Saddam was in his hole, he should have been forced to sign surrender documents or be shot in the head.

Do you believe that would have been effective in stemming the insurgency? I'll submit that's a wildly unlikely outcome.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

The surrender I refer to is a national surrender, not individual, you know like after WW2? When Saddam was in his hole, he should have been forced to sign surrender documents or be shot in the head.

Do you believe that would have been effective in stemming the insurgency? I'll submit that's a wildly unlikely outcome.

I think so, then again I could be wrong, what the hell do I know?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Yes, but its only the insurgents I want eliminated.

But insurgents are Iraqis too. I thought you wanted to help Iraqis...

BTW, thanks for leaving out the part about getting saddam to sign the surrender document - perhaps the Sunnis would have been easier to deal with.

It wouldn't have done anything... Popular uprisings rebellions don't all come in the form the South in teh civil war did...

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Yes, but its only the insurgents I want eliminated.

But insurgents are Iraqis too. I thought you wanted to help Iraqis...

BTW, thanks for leaving out the part about getting saddam to sign the surrender document - perhaps the Sunnis would have been easier to deal with.

It wouldn't have done anything... Popular uprisings rebellions don't all come in the form the South in teh civil war did...

If I could send them all some magic-mojo of peace I would, but right now all they know is the way of the gun...getting them to change is hard.

We are there, what do you suggest we do?

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
You really can't judge unless you have spent months and months in combat and are in a rough terrain where the enemy your fighting is NOT following the rules of war.

They are boobytrapping bodies and playing dead, pretending to surrender and then opening fire.

I'm sure after weeks of this type of combat you would probably just shoot first.

I'm getting sick of this argument. Take it to its conclusion and you can't judge anybody unless you've been through exactly what they have. Please.

If they were women and children or the men had their hands tied behind their backs and they were mowed down then I would have a problem with it.

This Marine had been fighting for weeks was highly highly highly highly highly stressed and might have shot the person without really thinking about clearly. He might regret what he did now after so time has passed.

Some people hold up ok under combat and others don't.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If I could send them all some magic-mojo of peace I would, but right now all they know is the way of the gun...getting them to change is hard.

Who says they need to change?

We are there, what do you suggest we do?

Within the scope of this thread I suggest we not stoop to dirty fighting and kill in cold blood and stop violating the laws of war.