*Uncensored* video of the wounded Iraqi

[sandorski]

What a fine mess.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: 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.

so you are ok with the Iraqis kidnapping and killing...ok.

What happens when we leave tomorrow...will they revert to a utopian society or will it be civil war? its their choice.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: 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.

so you are ok with the Iraqis kidnapping and killing...ok.

What happens when we leave tomorrow...will they revert to a utopian society or will it be civil war? its their choice.

Exactly. It's *their* choice. It's *their* country. Why don't we leave it to them and get our men and women home?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: 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.

so you are ok with the Iraqis kidnapping and killing...ok.

What happens when we leave tomorrow...will they revert to a utopian society or will it be civil war? its their choice.

Exactly. It's *their* choice. It's *their* country. Why don't we leave it to them and get our men and women home?

fine with me

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

Yes.

 

[cwjerome]

It's obvious to me the marine felt there was a danger. I cannot blame him for that... such is war.

I would suggest to anyone to try staying awake 2 days straight, sleep a couple 3 hours, and then stay up another 2 days. While eating MREs. While engaged in continual house-to-house comabt. While having a fellow soldier get blown away from a booby trap and getting shot in the face 1 day earlier. You cannot fanthom the fog of war that exists for these people, where death is a milisecond away and your reactions have to be true 100% of the time. Under the rules of engagement, if a "hostile intent" is perceived, the man is justified in shooting. I give him the benefit of the doubt... based on what they are going through, he was protecting himself and his squad. I will impart my deepest respect and sympathies for this man until he is PROVEN guilty of a crime.

It sickens me to see people rush to judgement simply because they want another reason to bitch about the war they hate.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wow, now I know you are off your nut.


"Hey there, mr. insurgency man, stop shooting at me, because Saddam signed this surrender thingy!"




:roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

Yes.

Would you base your life on an ASSUMPTION that the area was secured?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

Yes.

Would you base your life on an ASSUMPTION that the area was secured?

I and you do everyday.

 

[cwjerome]

Real secure.... multiple shots being fired just moments from entering that building :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

Yes.

Would you base your life on an ASSUMPTION that the area was secured?

I and you do everyday.

That's true. I assume that when I drive to work that the cars in the other lane aren't going to cross the center line and kill me. If I didn't make that assumption, I probably wouldn't drive to work.

It does happen from time to time though, doesn't it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

These Insurgents had been left there the previous day by US Forces. I assume the area was secured, there is no reason to suspect that they were later booby trapped after having been disarmed.

Did the Marine know that?

Yes.

Would you base your life on an ASSUMPTION that the area was secured?

I and you do everyday.

That's true. I assume that when I drive to work that the cars in the other lane aren't going to cross the center line and kill me. If I didn't make that assumption, I probably wouldn't drive to work.

It does happen from time to time though, doesn't it?

Hehe, seriously though, this Marine F'd up. Considering that he was shot in the face the day before, I hope the Court shows mercy. I think he should have been given a couple days of R&R just to deal with his close call. I think the stress from the previous days event made him make a poor judgement call. Nevertheless, what he did was wrong.

I'm sure there are many similar situations that have happened already that will never be Court Martialed. The Soldiers who witness these events will likely never speak of them and will live their lives with their secrets haunting them. This particular Soldier was unfortunate to have a camera crew following him around, though in a sense his having to deal with the event probably will haunt him less than those keeping their secrets.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

I don't know if that's true or not, though I have seen it reported. Even if true, it wouldn't excuse murder in a case under these facts. If the Marine was uncertain as to whether the guy was armed, he has ample training in securing prisoners, and that training includes methods other than a 5.56mm to the forehead. As I said above, combat stress may be a mitigating factor in this case, but it's not legally an excuse.

To answer your question, a soldier cannot fire on a disarmed, wounded combatant who hasn't demonstrated hostile intent. In theory (and it may sound counter-intuitive), the objective of combat is not to kill the enemy per se - it's to disable him. This is why it's illegal to use ammunitions that cause unnecessary damage and suffering, like fragmenting bullets. In this instance, the decedent was already disabled, and incapable of hurting the Marines, so killing him is illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm rushing to judgment - as I said, the judge or panel of members will, if this case goes to trial, have access to a lot more information than we have. I don't know if the Marine is guilty of murder or not.

That said, this case is unusual in that we have all seen a videotape of this Marine shooting a wounded, unarmed man in the forehead. If the roles were reversed, and we saw tape on al Jazeera of an insurgent executing an American GI whose only crime was playing dead out of fear, I can't imagine the conservatives on this board would be so anxious to defend the insurgent's actions.

I am NOT saying this Marine is evil, or that he committed premeditated murder, but it certainly looks to me as though he has committed an EXTREMELY serious war crime. We can't as Americans just close ranks around him and protect him, because it will endanger our own forces in the future. The Court will have to decide his guilt or innocence, and, if he's convicted, the appropriate sentence.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Isn't it true that enemy combatants have booby traped bodies or played dead? Just because you can't see a weapon, does that mean the combatant is unarmed? If you're playing dead, you're obviously not going to display a weapon or make a hostile gesture until you feel you are at an advantage. Are you saying that a soldier can't fire at a combatant until he sees a weapon or the combatant demonstrates a hostile intent? If that's true, it would seem to me that a lot of soldiers are war criminals.

I'm surprised by your rush to judgement. Isn't that unusual for a defense attorney?

I don't know if that's true or not, though I have seen it reported. Even if true, it wouldn't excuse murder in a case under these facts. If the Marine was uncertain as to whether the guy was armed, he has ample training in securing prisoners, and that training includes methods other than a 5.56mm to the forehead. As I said above, combat stress may be a mitigating factor in this case, but it's not legally an excuse.

To answer your question, a soldier cannot fire on a disarmed, wounded combatant who hasn't demonstrated hostile intent. In theory (and it may sound counter-intuitive), the objective of combat is not to kill the enemy per se - it's to disable him. This is why it's illegal to use ammunitions that cause unnecessary damage and suffering, like fragmenting bullets. In this instance, the decedent was already disabled, and incapable of hurting the Marines, so killing him is illegal.

I wouldn't say I'm rushing to judgment - as I said, the judge or panel of members will, if this case goes to trial, have access to a lot more information than we have. I don't know if the Marine is guilty of murder or not.

That said, this case is unusual in that we have all seen a videotape of this Marine shooting a wounded, unarmed man in the forehead. If the roles were reversed, and we saw tape on al Jazeera of an insurgent executing an American GI whose only crime was playing dead out of fear, I can't imagine the conservatives on this board would be so anxious to defend the insurgent's actions.

I am NOT saying this Marine is evil, or that he committed premeditated murder, but it certainly looks to me as though he has committed an EXTREMELY serious war crime. We can't as Americans just close ranks around him and protect him, because it will endanger our own forces in the future. The Court will have to decide his guilt or innocence, and, if he's convicted, the appropriate sentence.

I'm a trained chemist, and not a lawyer, but it seems to me a good defense attorney could make a pretty strong case for this guy.

Allegedly, the insurgents are playing dead, booby trapping bodies, and firing after displaying white flags. Clearly, they've been using schools and mosques as weapons depots.

It's really hard to develop much sympathy for the insurgents, but if the Marine violated the rules, he obviously should be punished.

 

[Gaard]

But if he, in any way, felt like he was in danger, doesn't that mean that he didn't break any rules when he murdered this guy?

 

[Grunt03]

What would all of you have done in his situation?

The same thing, we do not know who the enemy is, the enemy is playing with a different rule book. I think he was just in shooting the fool. If he wanted to live then he should have obeyed the commands. Those of you who do not like this action, tuff, it is war and this has always happened. If you dont like it then join up, deploy to Iraq and lets see how long you make it with your morals........

 

[Dangermouse33]

DonVito - in your opinion, would you say there is a case for the marine considering the tactics he has seen or knows the enemy uses - ie blowing themselves up, pretending to surrender etc. considering the disabling tactics he knows would probably be pretty useless had the insurgent really intended to blow himself up with a grenade once enough marines got close enough. Also take this in the context of there being multiple shots fired prior to entering the "secured building" as mentione dby cwjerome.

 

[Klixxer]

War is hell and sh!t like this will always happen, we're not perfect, not by a long shot.

The only man here how actually HAS any knowledge on these matters is DonVito so i take his post to heart, the rest is only opinions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I can understand why he did what he did, but he's going to spend years in a military prison for it.

Correction, under current U.S. Regime Doctrine he will be next U.S. President.

 

[NesuD]

Lets see we have a Marine who was shot in the face the day before. Has been engaged in combat almost nonstop for what a week? His unit enters a location that was the scene of an intense fire fight the previous day in which the terrorists were pretty much killed to a man. The best intel available to him is that the building had been secured and that anyone in it is already dead. Now considering that he has been dealing with booby trapped bodies, fake surrenders, and terrorists playing possum then popping up and shooting at you I think it is safe to assume that going into that building anything that moved should be considered a threat. there wasn't supposed to be any live people in there so if one was found then under those circumstances I would have to assume initially it was another one of the booby trappers, fake surrenderers, or possum players who have snuck in overnight to set up an ambush. Yes I saw the video. He could have very easily had a bomb strapped on under his shirt. Since there weren't supposed to be any wounded enemy there I can see the justification in shooting first rather than taking a chance that the guy would have detonated a bomb which by the way would have probably killed everyone in the room including the reporter. Lets not forget the terrorists have determined the tactics of booby traps, fake surrenders, and playing dead in order to ambush. The marines have to adjust to those tactics which means every supposed dead terrorist is a potential threat.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'm not into ultra-gruesome stuff. Can someone summarize what happens?

You really dont see anything. It is safe to view.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I can understand why he did what he did, but he's going to spend years in a military prison for it.

As anyone should who commits murder.

Tho I am in no way in support of this war which has taken the lives thousands of other iraqis killed in this sham of a "freedom" war. So let the flames begin.