Author Topic: No Charges In Iraq Photo Flap (Read 393 times)

schizer · « **on:** November 22, 2004, 09:40:23 PM »

Remember this?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1117041iraq1.html

RTSigma · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2004, 09:43:17 PM »

Has it been proven to be true?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2004, 09:48:27 PM »

I'm still trying to figure which article of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice this guy, if he commited a crime, could be charged under.

The only one I can think of is the catch all. Article 134.

Bodhi · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2004, 10:46:18 PM »

what a waste of time that was...

capt. apathy · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2004, 10:51:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm still trying to figure which article of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice this guy, if he commited a crime, could be charged under.

The only one I can think of is the catch all. Article 134.

unlawful possession of a sense of humor?

Drunky · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2004, 11:37:36 PM »

I thought Article 15 was the catch all.

Steve · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2004, 01:05:23 AM »

I thought this was damned funny... still do.

That said, it's not wise.... bad PR I suppose.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2004, 01:09:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
I thought this was damned funny... still do.

That said, it's not wise.... bad PR I suppose.

you're right it is bad PR. you'd think that with all the people we have who do little more than worry about PR and spin, we could let soldiers just be soldiers.

I know, I'm dreaming.

Staga · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2004, 05:42:42 AM »

I'd say putting a sign like that in that kids hand shows lack of manners and pretty bad taste of humour; kinda like something you'd expect from 16y old kids; not from a soldier.
I'd say he's a disgrace for US but at least he didn't hurt anyone when taking the pic.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2004, 06:41:03 AM »

I blame Boosh.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2004, 08:44:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Drunky
I thought Article 15 was the catch all.

No Article 15 covers Non-judicial punishment for less than serious infractions. For those that don't know NJP is when your CO or appointed officer will basically here your case and decide what punishment is called for. Different ranks of zeros (officers) have different level of punishment they can assign. Every member has the right to refuse NJP and be tried by Courts Martial.

articles 77 through 134 are the punitive articls of the UCMJ (actual offenses)