This seems SOOO WRONG

[wrag]

Ex-Marine Questions Prosecution in Civilian Court

They want to try him for what happened during active duty?

this SEEMS so wrong!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405164,00.html

Think about the message this will send active duty personal!

[Goth]

If what I read is true, maybe he should be tried. I'm a vet myself, and I don't particularly relish the idea of civil trial, but if what he did is true, he committed a war crime.

[Hornet33]

Maybe he did commit a crime (I don't think so), BUT it is NOT the state of comifornia's job to press charges. If there is enough evidence to bring charges against him then the Iraqi government should do it, or the International War Crimes Tribunial.

Personaly I'd like to meet the prosecuter face to face so I could punch his teeth in. This kids been through enough already without having to deal with this crap. No one really knows what happened and yeah I know the law is the law but unless you've been in combat, well things are just different. Things happen in the blink of an eye and you don't stop to ask yourself, "Gee I wonder if this is legal or not?" You just do whayever you think you have to do right then to survive.

If those Marines had 4 wounded insurgents in that building and they got orders to move out right now, yeah I would have popped them. You NEVER leave a living enemy behind you.

[Gaidin]

I'm a combat veteran myself, and I can not say that I wouldn't have done the same thing under the circumstances.  What Hornet said stands true though.  You never turn your back on a living enemy, over there you couldn't even discount the dead ones sometimes.  I did alot of things over there that I have to relive every night when I sleep, but I know that I will wake up next to my wife and be able to see my children when the sun comes up.  So I can deal with the sleepless nights.

[CAP1]

i've never been in combat. cannot even begin to imagine what it feels like.

if this guy really did commit a crime, it should be dealt with internally. no civilians that haven't seen combat can really judge someone who has been accused of "murdering" someone in a combat zone.

 don't know if he did it or not. don't care. if he did shoot them, chances are good that one of them did something to cause him to feel the need to do it.

 friggin lawyers.........

[john9001]

maybe they should assign a lawyer or two to each rifle squad. That way they will know when it's ok to shoot the enemy.

[Hornet33]

maybe they should assign a lawyer or two to each rifle squad. That way they will know when it's ok to shoot the enemy.

What do you want to do, increase the "friendy" fire incident rate 5000%  ?   Hmmmm, might not be that bad an idea after all, maybe paint a bg yellow L on their helmets so everyone knows what they are.

[wrag]

i've never been in combat. cannot even begin to imagine what it feels like.

if this guy really did commit a crime, it should be dealt with internally. no civilians that haven't seen combat can really judge someone who has been accused of "murdering" someone in a combat zone.

 don't know if he did it or not. don't care. if he did shoot them, chances are good that one of them did something to cause him to feel the need to do it.

 friggin lawyers.........

My thoughts pretty much match yours on this.

Where I think it is SO WRONG is ....IF he did commit war crimes the MILITARY should deal with it!

AND if you have NEVER been in combat you SHOULD NOT try to second guess the intentions of someone for things they did while in combat.

[AquaShrimp]

He was tough enough to order that 4 prisoners be executed, yet he started crying when talking about being broke.  I'm almost positive he has a personality disorder.

[rabbidrabbit]

I'm almost positive I have a personality disorder.

Fixed your spelling error.

[Chalenge]

Have grenades been downsized or something? Seems like a much better answer.

[CAP1]

He was tough enough to order that 4 prisoners be executed, yet he started crying when talking about being broke.  I'm almost positive he has a personality disorder.

you been in combat? were you there? did you see your friends shot? did you see everything that went on there?

then don't judge him.

 if what he did was wronbg, it should be judged by his PEERS. people that have been where he was.

[Cthulhu]

This should be dealt with by the military, not by a civilian court where you're guaranteed to see a lot of political axe-grinding by parties who have no bearing on this case.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The proper thing to do, and there is precedent for it, is to recall him to duty and try him in a military court, if there is sufficient evidence. The case does NOT belong in civilian court under ANY circumstances.

And for the same reasons, enemy combatants should NEVER have access to civilian courts.

[AquaShrimp]

you been in combat? were you there? did you see your friends shot? did you see everything that went on there?

then don't judge him.

 if what he did was wronbg, it should be judged by his PEERS. people that have been where he was.

If 10 million other Marines can do what he did without executing prisoners, who do you think is wrong?  You're getting your wires crossed.  A war crime is still a war crime.