Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on August 18, 2008, 12:45:29 PM
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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......... :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
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. :D
-
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......... :rolleyes:
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.
-
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.
-
I'm almost positive I have a personality disorder.
Fixed your spelling error. :salute
-
Have grenades been downsized or something? Seems like a much better answer.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Im sure in Kalifornia he'll get a real fair shake. :rolleyes:
I remember this well....Im a vet...but never in combat...but common sense to me is..if its moving or breathing...it need not be.
-
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.
And what makes you think this hasnet happend many other times....just not anything ever come of it. Your reaching. Same has this court and trail. Hitler...goering...himmler... .Hussien...those were war criminals.
This kid killed people he should have been killing...simple.
-
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.
Ah yes, I'm sure the enemy wouild have done the right thing to. :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
In essence isnt that how we missed out big Chance at killing Bin Laden.
some jacknut lawyer said not to shoot
-
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.
these guys were in a house that they know fire was comming from. it seems difficult to know who is friendly and who is not.
only his peers have any right to judge him at all. us civilians have NO RIGHT to judge this guy. he was serving his country.
again, i'll say it. if he shot them, or ordered them shot, chances are very good that they did somehting to make him or someone in his squad feel threatened. combat zone.
if he just took his squad into a peaceful village, and opened up with everything they had, THAT would be a war crime. killing enemy combatants(most likely) is not
-
:huh
-
Lawyers will destroy the world.
One of the few only good things about a revolution is that it's usually the Lawyers that get it first.
-
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.
Not saying he did right!
Not saying he shouldn't be tried!
Saying he should be tried by the MILITARY!
He should be tried by people that UNDERSTAND what it's like, what it's about!
Too many civilians just don't SEEM to have a concept of what it's really like.
Try telling em?
How?
I remember the endless questions.
What's it like? etc.... ( I wont go into some of the questions or the looks on some of the faces as they asked )
Too many have never even fired a firearm or been in a serious fight....
Too many are hampered by the way they've lived their lives, they have no real concept of deadly force and the way it makes you feel inside, or life threatening danger and the way it makes you feel inside. And how those feeling can affect your decisions and actions....
YOU ARE CHANGED from that point on. The things that are of the greatest valuable, the greatest importance in life become different then they were before such things happened. Your view of the world and life also change.
It's far too difficult for many to understand, or perhaps truly comprehend, what may or may not have happened.
IF THEY CAN'T comprehend it without actually having experienced it to begin with, then HOW can they be FAIR to the individual on trial?
So if they're gonna try this guy, and perhaps they should, IMHO it's WRONG to have civilians do it.
IMHO Those ARE NOT HIS PEERS!
And I just can't see how he would get a FAIR trail!
-
You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him. Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.
He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.
I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.
-
Did I understand correctly that the guy followed the CO's order and shot some captives dead?
If that is so, they should both go to court, it could then be in the same one as other war criminals are tried. Hague.
-
You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him. Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.
He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.
I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.
Well said...and it can be said of many on this BBS
-
Not saying he did right!
Not saying he shouldn't be tried!
Saying he should be tried by the MILITARY!
He should be tried by people that UNDERSTAND what it's like, what it's about!
Too many civilians just don't SEEM to have a concept of what it's really like.
Try telling em?
How?
I remember the endless questions.
What's it like? etc.... ( I wont go into some of the questions or the looks on some of the faces as they asked )
Too many have never even fired a firearm or been in a serious fight....
Too many are hampered by the way they've lived their lives, they have no real concept of deadly force and the way it makes you feel inside, or life threatening danger and the way it makes you feel inside. And how those feeling can affect your decisions and actions....
YOU ARE CHANGED from that point on. The things that are of the greatest valuable, the greatest importance in life become different then they were before such things happened. Your view of the world and life also change.
It's far too difficult for many to understand, or perhaps truly comprehend, what may or may not have happened.
IF THEY CAN'T comprehend it without actually having experienced it to begin with, then HOW can they be FAIR to the individual on trial?
So if they're gonna try this guy, and perhaps they should, IMHO it's WRONG to have civilians do it.
IMHO Those ARE NOT HIS PEERS!
And I just can't see how he would get a FAIR trail!
Great post Wrag
-
Civilians have no jurisdiction do they ?
-
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.
Please show me where california law covers war crimes what statutes are those ? What you don't get is if he committed a war crime his peers will be tougher on him than anyone . The UCMJ is designed to handle this far better than any civilian law could be . The captain had the right answer recall him to active duty . Where it will be fair shot .
-
No place in a civilian court for this at all.
As I see it, no place in a court of any kind.
If you are taking fire from someone in any situation, they bought their ticket.
-
You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him. Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.
He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.
I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.
Had an XO who had the perfect quote ...never confuse a superior education with a superior mind .;)
-
Nazario, of Riverside, is charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter on suspicion of killing or causing others to kill four unarmed detainees in November 2004 in Fallujah, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war. He also faces one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
What kills me about this are the charges. OK the manslaughter charges I can understand. (The fact tht it's being brought up in a civilian court is a load of crap but that's beside the point)
BUT.......assault with a deadly weapon??? Hello he was a Marine in COMBAT. OF COURSE he had a deadly weapon. It was ISSUED to him by the Marine Corp. It was his JOB to carry that weapon and USE it.
Discharging a firearm during a crime of violence??? See my statement above.
Next thing you know they'll try and use the Komifornia assault weapons ban laws against him too since he used a black gun that's scarry looking and had a 30 round high cap magazine.
What makes me sick is this kid is getting dragged through the ringer for someones personal political agenda.
-
No place in a civilian court for this at all.
As I see it, no place in a court of any kind.
If you are taking fire from someone in any situation, they bought their ticket.
That may be true, but since there was no other trial, this puts some rather dirty deals from within the military under the spotlight.
A CO who orders captives to be shot/executed deserves a court marshal. And any bloody soldier should know that.
You don't shoot captives and play the good guy at the same time....
-
That may be true, but since there was no other trial, this puts some rather dirty deals from within the military under the spotlight.
A CO who orders captives to be shot/executed deserves a court marshal. And any bloody soldier should know that.
You don't shoot captives and play the good guy at the same time....
this is the kind of bs that the insurgents, enemy combatents, bad guys see. this is why the keep fighting us. because we have to follow rules, and they don't.
well, ya know what? even if those guys that they shot weren't the shooters, they were STILL GUILTY of firing on our troops through association. they allowed the enemy combatants into their house. they allowed them to fire on our troops. they themselves bacame enemy combatants by doing so.
so what if they were disarmed? they brought this all on themselves by firing on us. period.
what if he hadn't done anything, and the troops went to leave, and one of them knifed another soldier? i guess you people would think that was ok though, wouldn't yas?????
you all that think it's right that he's being tried in a civilian court, gather yourselves together, and go over there. spend a week with one of the patrols in combat. then come bck here and tell us what you think :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Civilians have no jurisdiction do they ?
That would a YES and a NO.
Not easy to explain.
If the U.S. civilians wanted certain things looked into YES.
-
You can't argue with AquaShrimp. He knows all there is to know about the military from all the reading he's done in college, just ask him. Been down this road before with Shrimp and every time I asked him if he EVER served, the response was along the lines of, I don't need to, I can read unlike you dumb military guys that can't make a real living in the real world. I have a college education so I'm smarter than you are.
He is the type that will beat on the military with everything he's got, yet will NEVER understand that he's only allowed to do so because the military is there to protect his right to do so.
I bet Shrimp the the prosecuter in this case would get along great.
You know I think that is the nicest way I've ever seen someone call another person arrogant...... :salute
-
this is the kind of bs that the insurgents, enemy combatents, bad guys see. this is why the keep fighting us. because we have to follow rules, and they don't.
well, ya know what? even if those guys that they shot weren't the shooters, they were STILL GUILTY of firing on our troops through association. they allowed the enemy combatants into their house. they allowed them to fire on our troops. they themselves bacame enemy combatants by doing so.
so what if they were disarmed? they brought this all on themselves by firing on us. period.
what if he hadn't done anything, and the troops went to leave, and one of them knifed another soldier? i guess you people would think that was ok though, wouldn't yas?????
you all that think it's right that he's being tried in a civilian court, gather yourselves together, and go over there. spend a week with one of the patrols in combat. then come bck here and tell us what you think :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.
-
The people that want to see this kid tried would NEVER go over there and walk in his boots for 5 minutes let alone 2 weeks because that would be below their high moral standards. That's what they would tell you anyway.
The reality is the people that want to see him convicted lack the moral courage to actualy physicaly fight for anything they believe in. These are the same folks that will tell you if someone is mugging you it's better to just hand them everything and do nothing so no one gets hurt. To call the police because they are there to "protect" you. The criminals only do what they do because of social injustices committed against them. That by resisting your adding to the problem.
They are after their own agenda. The war is bad, what he did is bad, so lets make an excample of him for killing people in combat.
It's all a total load of crap. If he popped those guys, well maybe they shouldn't have been in that house shooting at him and his fellow Marines. War is hell and people get killed.
-
Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.
Yes we are, and it's stupid. Having rules in warfare is the dumbest thing I can possibly think of. Again it was a bunch of panty waists politicians that came up with the "rules" of warfare. Not warriors. A warriors take on things is real simple. We just got shot at from that house over there. Response=level the freaking house with everyone in it. Problem solved. Panty waist politicians, and metrosexuals......uh uh what if there are women and children in there? What if there is only one bad guy in there? What if, what if, what if? So a bunch of stupid rules were written down and we got suckered into following them.
Can't use hollow point ammo because it's inhumane. WHAT?????? I always thought the idea was to kill the enemy as quickly as possible, not as humanely as possible.
Can't shoot at personal with a .50 round or larger, only their equipment. OK let me take a shot at his helmet :eek:
Maybe.....just maybe if warfare was conducted in as barbaric a manner as possible instead of all the hand holding, second guessing, try to be as nice as possible and not kill too many people bull that we have to do now, people might actually think twice before starting a war.
-
Just so you know, Riverside, California may be one of the most republican cities in the State. They have a republican congressman. Hardly the land of 'fruits and nuts' except for the kind you actually grow.
-
Is the USA a member of the Geneva convention or not?
You simply do not EXECUTE those who have surrender and claim being non-barbaric at the same time. This doing puts you in the exacts same camp as the Talibans. Period.
no,it doesn't but it DOES put us in a camp that the taliban will think twice about messing with.....which they don't right now.
-
These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
The US army should pretty well know that, for it has quite some roots in military history.
When the Germans were spotted mass-executing US captives in the fall of 1944, there were US soldiers after that surrendering. This may have fused the perhaps finest dig-in in US army history in the bocage. Surrender? NUTS! Vot? GO TO HELL!
In short, conducts like this provoke very strong resistance. And then: play like this, you are at the same level as the enemy, so who is the bad guy?
-
These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
If your talking about the opposition laying down there weapons "without" firing a shot, and surrendering that's one thing.
I can't understand this logic though:
The enemy is in a holed up position firing at our soldiers with the intent of killing as many as possible. He runs out of bullets, or his position is over run, and he says, ok... i give up now. Come on, that's b.s.
Edit: i can understand that happening to an extent during the world wars, where the enemy was defined, but even then it was up to the discretion of the soldier as to what course to take.
-
These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you.
They already do...only its like this....HATE :uhoh
-
Having rules in warfare is the dumbest thing I can possibly think of.
Maybe.....just maybe if warfare was conducted in as barbaric a manner as possible instead of all the hand holding, second guessing, try to be as nice as possible and not kill too many people bull that we have to do now, people might actually think twice before starting a war.
Absolutely :aok I remember when Paveway's were first used in Viet Nam. We didn't do so to minimize casualties. We did it to hit the target. Today that increased accuracy has been perverted to the point where getting broken glass in some reporter's latte who's standing 50 ft from the target is unacceptable. :rolleyes: And if we somehow found a way to kill the enemy inside without having to destroy the building, it would be considered "assassination". Moronic. War is supposed to be Hell. That's why you don't go there lightly.
-
These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
The US army should pretty well know that, for it has quite some roots in military history.
When the Germans were spotted mass-executing US captives in the fall of 1944, there were US soldiers after that surrendering. This may have fused the perhaps finest dig-in in US army history in the bocage. Surrender? NUTS! Vot? GO TO HELL!
In short, conducts like this provoke very strong resistance. And then: play like this, you are at the same level as the enemy, so who is the bad guy?
Angus, What German execution of US captives are you referring to? The Malmedy Massacre occured in December '44, in Belgium. Bastogne (Belgium) is not in the bocage region of France (it's roughly 290 miles away), and the seige occured 5 months after the bocage fighting in France was over. :confused:
-
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.
Woah, someone at the O'Club is advocating an international court? I must've forgot to take my meds. :huh
-
That may be true, but since there was no other trial, this puts some rather dirty deals from within the military under the spotlight.
A CO who orders captives to be shot/executed deserves a court marshal. And any bloody soldier should know that.
You don't shoot captives and play the good guy at the same time....
You don`t play in war period.
Rules in war when you are the only one trying to play by them??
Give me a break.
-
Woah, someone at the O'Club is advocating an international court? I must've forgot to take my meds. :huh
They want to charge him with a war crime then let the war crimes tribunial handle it. Comifornia doesn't have a war crimes tribunial do they? Didn't think so.
-
They want to charge him with a war crime then let the war crimes tribunial handle it. Comifornia doesn't have a war crimes tribunial do they? Didn't think so.
Again, I'm reading the O'Club and it's "take him to the hague, it's not up to us to prosecute our own soldiers." :confused:
There's no place like home... there's no place like home... :pray Where am I???????? :huh :uhoh
-
These insidents will only convince your enemy to HATE you. They'll think twice before offering any surrender to you, since they're as good as dead if they do.
The US army should pretty well know that, for it has quite some roots in military history.
When the Germans were spotted mass-executing US captives in the fall of 1944, there were US soldiers after that surrendering. This may have fused the perhaps finest dig-in in US army history in the bocage. Surrender? NUTS! Vot? GO TO HELL!
In short, conducts like this provoke very strong resistance. And then: play like this, you are at the same level as the enemy, so who is the bad guy?
THEY ALREADY do hate us. obvously your way doesnt work.
our soldiers are trained to fight. they are the best in the world. there are none better, or better equipped.
it's a crying shame that they are not allowed to use their excellent training and equipment.
war is bad.....we all agree on that. the fact is though, that it happens, and will continue to happen. while the insurgents continue to fight without rules, and the US continues to fight with rules, this will go on forever. this could stop in less than a month if our military were allowed to actually fight.
and now, after having people they thought weren't combatants shooting at them, snipers shooting from houses, then when they go in there, every occupant says it wasn't them, sidewalks blowing up due to explosives being embedded....car bombs, suicide bombers, these poor guys have to totally tubular worry about civilians THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN IN COMBAT JUDGING THEM? are you people insane???????
if it were reversed, do you think the iraquis would have shown any quarter to our men? i think not. if they were in the house where fire came from, they were combatants.
let these guys do their jobs. if they do something wrong, let military courts handle it.
-
Should military courts have jurisdiction to prosecute after discharge? Right now they don't. That's why the Federal Government is using this tactic.
-
Should military courts have jurisdiction to prosecute after discharge? Right now they don't. That's why the Federal Government is using this tactic.
It isn't the Feds doing this, its the State of Kalifornia.
Military members can be recalled to active duty apparently for cases such as this.
-
Guys like him are not stable in combat. You guys should pay better attention to the mental health of your combatants. Incidents like these only get you into more trouble in the end. International law is to be followed, war or no war. Yours is a country that very much like to enforce international law on other countries. Why not lead by example?
-
It isn't the Feds doing this, its the State of Kalifornia.
Military members can be recalled to active duty apparently for cases such as this.
The article says federal prosecution.
-
Guys like him are not stable in combat. You guys should pay better attention to the mental health of your combatants. Incidents like these only get you into more trouble in the end. International law is to be followed, war or no war. Yours is a country that very much like to enforce international law on other countries. Why not lead by example?
wait? the guys we're fighting agianst aren't following it, but we're supposed to? if we do, we're doomed to defeat.
1 law in a war........WIN. period.
how are you supposed to stay "mentally stable" in conditions like these guys are in?
people shooting at you every turn of the corner, never know who your friends are, never know if you're gonna see tomorrow......that's insanity. i'd worry more about the guy that DOES appear mentally stable than those that appear to have problems.
i also believe that if he was in the wrong, i think that the military can call him back to duty. then at least he'd have a fair trial.
what the hell does kalifornia have to do with something that happened in iraq? now that i'm thinking about THAT, i'd be even MORE pissed if i lived there......they're wasting tax dollars to put this guy on trial that has/had NOTHING AT ALL to do with them :mad: :furious :rolleyes:
-
The article says federal prosecution.
Telephone messages for a spokesman in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles seeking comment were not returned.
I think I got Kalifornia from:
IRVINE, Calif. — A former Marine sergeant facing the first federal civilian prosecution of a military member accused of a war crime says there is much more at stake than his claim of innocence on charges that he killed unarmed detainees in Fallujah, Iraq.
It's happening in Kalifornia, but the charges are being brought by the feds.....my bad. :)
-
wait? the guys we're fighting agianst aren't following it, but we're supposed to? if we do, we're doomed to defeat.
1 law in a war........WIN. period.
how are you supposed to stay "mentally stable" in conditions like these guys are in?
people shooting at you every turn of the corner, never know who your friends are, never know if you're gonna see tomorrow......that's insanity. i'd worry more about the guy that DOES appear mentally stable than those that appear to have problems.
i also believe that if he was in the wrong, i think that the military can call him back to duty. then at least he'd have a fair trial.
what the hell does kalifornia have to do with something that happened in iraq? now that i'm thinking about THAT, i'd be even MORE pissed if i lived there......they're wasting tax dollars to put this guy on trial that has/had NOTHING AT ALL to do with them :mad: :furious :rolleyes:
Cap1, with all due respect, you're wrong on this one. One of the best ways to win a war is to treat the defeated enemy/POWs humanely because it encourages surrender. Shooting prisoners only encourages the enemy to continue fighting until the death, which is a lot more costly for our side, both in $ and in lives.
Secondly, re-read the article. It clearly explains in the first sentence that the marine faces Federal Prosecution, not state prosecution by California.
-
wait? the guys we're fighting agianst aren't following it, but we're supposed to? if we do, we're doomed to defeat.
1 law in a war........WIN. period.
how are you supposed to stay "mentally stable" in conditions like these guys are in?
people shooting at you every turn of the corner, never know who your friends are, never know if you're gonna see tomorrow......that's insanity. i'd worry more about the guy that DOES appear mentally stable than those that appear to have problems.
i also believe that if he was in the wrong, i think that the military can call him back to duty. then at least he'd have a fair trial.
what the hell does kalifornia have to do with something that happened in iraq? now that i'm thinking about THAT, i'd be even MORE pissed if i lived there......they're wasting tax dollars to put this guy on trial that has/had NOTHING AT ALL to do with them :mad: :furious :rolleyes:
WAR is nothing but sanctioned murder. Before going to war it is wise to know the limits of these sanctions, to know what you can and can not do. If you can't accept the fact you're going to die you have no business being a soldier, it comes with the job. Some people deal with it better than others and some can't even handle it. Bottom line is all front line soldiers need support in order to maintain their mental healt (assuming they were mentally healthy before combat duty), something I sense is clearly lacking in the US armed forces. Everyone have a breaking point, military training is supposed to find that breaking point to assess the individual's capacity. Something is not adding up when stuff like this happens.
After all, this is the 21st century and not WW2. We do know a great deal more about the human mind, and how combat stress affect us, than we did back then.
-
Cap1, with all due respect, you're wrong on this one. One of the best ways to win a war is to treat the defeated enemy/POWs humanely because it encourages surrender. Shooting prisoners only encourages the enemy to continue fighting until the death, which is a lot more costly for our side, both in $ and in lives.
Secondly, re-read the article. It clearly explains in the first sentence that the marine faces Federal Prosecution, not state prosecution by California.
you could be right.....i'm just really pissed, because i don't believe anyone outside military should be allowed to judge a soldiers actions during a combat action. it seems like a slap in the face. even the feds really. if he did wrong, am i not right in believing he should be recalled, and then tried in a military court? that seems fairest, as then the people judging him will have been in his shoes at one point or another.
but then, i still have problems with the guys shooting at them too.....then when we overrun them, it's kinda like ""ooopsy!!! we give up.
i dunno............
-
Hey Vortex, not about to get into this discussion, but I do have to say one thing. For a second language, your command of English is most impressive. You express yourself far better than many "natives" over here. :salute
-
if he did wrong, am i not right in believing he should be recalled, and then tried in a military court? that seems fairest, as then the people judging him will have been in his shoes at one point or another.
I agree.
However, they'll have to acquit for lack of evidence.
-
Thankyou Cthulhu & :salute
-
Should military courts have jurisdiction to prosecute after discharge? Right now they don't. That's why the Federal Government is using this tactic.
The simple solution and one used before , is to recall him to active duty .
-
WAR is nothing but sanctioned murder. Before going to war it is wise to know the limits of these sanctions, to know what you can and can not do. If you can't accept the fact you're going to die you have no business being a soldier, it comes with the job. Some people deal with it better than others and some can't even handle it. Bottom line is all front line soldiers need support in order to maintain their mental healt (assuming they were mentally healthy before combat duty), something I sense is clearly lacking in the US armed forces. Everyone have a breaking point, military training is supposed to find that breaking point to assess the individual's capacity. Something is not adding up when stuff like this happens.
After all, this is the 21st century and not WW2. We do know a great deal more about the human mind, and how combat stress affect us, than we did back then.
We should use the example set by the germans perhaps ?
The simple fact is you hear the few examples of the ones who don't cope .
-
Screw DumbF@#$istan...
He can be court marshaled or brought to trial by the Iraqi government.
-
According to a Naval Criminal Investigative Service criminal complaint, several Marines allege Nazario shot two Iraqi men who had been detained while his squad searched a house. The complaint claims four Iraqi men were killed during the action.
The complaint states the squad had been taking fire from the house. After the troops entered the building and captured the insurgents, Nazario placed a call on his radio.
"Nazario said that he was asked, 'Are they dead yet?"' the complaint states. When Nazario responded that that the captives were still alive, he was allegedly told by the Marine on the radio to "make it happen."
Are you kidding? They were captured....ostensibly disarmed ( the report makes no mention they were even armed to start with).... then killed?
Are you bozos really that dumb? If this was a story about the Waffen SS you'd be calling them godless heathens and want them strung up from the rafters.
Anyone who cannot see this as a clear cut crime is seriously in need of psych eval. I do believe that it is not a civilian matter, that the DoD needs to address this. But to stand there and condone the killing of anyone after they've been captured....... it goes against everything that is American, what makes us great. Jurisprudence. Writ of Law. Anyone who doesn't realize this.... I feel incredibly sorry for you.
-
We should use the example set by the germans perhaps ?
The simple fact is you hear the few examples of the ones who don't cope .
What do the germans have to do with this?
Everyone hear about it, that's the problem. If you have personnel who can't cope with the conditions, you either have the wrong people deployed or don't take care of them well enough.
-
Are you kidding? They were captured....ostensibly disarmed ( the report makes no mention they were even armed to start with).... then killed?
Are you bozos really that dumb? If this was a story about the Waffen SS you'd be calling them godless heathens and want them strung up from the rafters.
Anyone who cannot see this as a clear cut crime is seriously in need of psych eval. I do believe that it is not a civilian matter, that the DoD needs to address this. But to stand there and condone the killing of anyone after they've been captured....... it goes against everything that is American, what makes us great. Jurisprudence. Writ of Law. Anyone who doesn't realize this.... I feel incredibly sorry for you.
I agree and if these are the facts he needs to be burned . Also who ever issued that order does as well .
-
What do the germans have to do with this?
Everyone hear about it, that's the problem. If you have personnel who can't cope with the conditions, you either have the wrong people deployed or don't take care of them well enough.
Sorry bud but there is no psychological test to determine if you will be able to hack it in combat. The only test is to find out in combat . This doesn't sound like a psych. breakdown anyways . The best judges are actual vets . How ever they make mistakes too . Ever hear of a guy named audie murphy ? Any kind of test will be no better than a WAG .
-
Are you kidding? They were captured....ostensibly disarmed ( the report makes no mention they were even armed to start with).... then killed?
Are you bozos really that dumb? If this was a story about the Waffen SS you'd be calling them godless heathens and want them strung up from the rafters.
Anyone who cannot see this as a clear cut crime is seriously in need of psych eval. I do believe that it is not a civilian matter, that the DoD needs to address this. But to stand there and condone the killing of anyone after they've been captured....... it goes against everything that is American, what makes us great. Jurisprudence. Writ of Law. Anyone who doesn't realize this.... I feel incredibly sorry for you.
first off..most of us never said it wasn't a crime.
second off, only his peers have a right to judge him. military. so they could/should recall him, then let him get a fair trial.
third off....none of us were there, so there is no way to know that they were really disarmed, and no longer a threat. only he and his squad know that.
fourth.....although i've never been in combat(and a BIG :salute to those of you that have been) i do believe in never turn your back on your enemy....no matter what.
something caused him to feel the need to do that, whether it was an order from higher up(not a good excuse) one of them moved too fast(with all of the soldiers still wound up from the action), or he just snapped.
like i've said, i've never seen combat, so there is NO WAY that i can judge this man. same for i think at least 80% of the rest on these boards.
just let the military handle it. it's their jurisdiction, not the govt's, not kalifornia's, not yours, not mine.........
-
I agree and if these are the facts he needs to be burned . Also who ever issued that order does as well .
yes, very true..no one is mentioning that though.......
i wonder if somehow their communications are recorded?
-
This doesn't sound like a psych. breakdown anyways.
Then you have the wrong people deployed. If there was a crime involved without a mental breakdown he's got no excuse, the wrong man in the wrong place.
Psych evaluations in combination with military training can come very close in determining mental stability in combat conditions. As every situation is unique, no method is 100% accurate.
In all probability he was not acting alone, which makes it likely he was acting with consent of others or together with others. A incident like that should not happen with professionally trained soldiers, they should know what they are doing, what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and the consequenses of their actions. If they don't, or if they knowingly break rules and/or orders, they are not professional soldiers but criminals.
-
Then you have the wrong people deployed. If there was a crime involved without a mental breakdown he's got no excuse, the wrong man in the wrong place.
Psych evaluations in combination with military training can come very close in determining mental stability in combat conditions. As every situation is unique, no method is 100% accurate.
In all probability he was not acting alone, which makes it likely he was acting with consent of others or together with others. A incident like that should not happen with professionally trained soldiers, they should know what they are doing, what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and the consequenses of their actions. If they don't, or if they knowingly break rules and/or orders, they are not professional soldiers but criminals.
You want a crystal ball . There is no way to tell who will commit a crime like this . Period . If there was there would be no crime ever . Just whistle up the psyche eval. and bust em before the commit it in any place in life . As for psyche eval + training coming close , pipe dream dude . You know not of what you speak .
-
"Nazario, of Riverside, is charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter on suspicion of killing or causing others to kill four unarmed detainees in November 2004 in Fallujah, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war. He also faces one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence."
I find this paragraph very disturbing to me. The fact that the Californian Government wants to try a Marine, who was in combat, for assault with a deadly weapon (one the United States Government provided along with ammo), and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence seems insane to me. If anyone has found a combat zone that is not violent, please let me know, I will gladly go there for my next deployment. I do not know what to say here, wow. I do not think we thought we would get charged by our state governments for doing the job the federal government told us to do. This is a SAD day in the history of our great nation.
-
Screw DumbF@#$istan...
He can be court marshaled or brought to trial by the Iraqi government.
courtmarshelled, yes.......tried by the iraqui govt......no way........
it's a military matter.
-
Angus, What German execution of US captives are you referring to? The Malmedy Massacre occured in December '44, in Belgium. Bastogne (Belgium) is not in the bocage region of France (it's roughly 290 miles away), and the seige occured 5 months after the bocage fighting in France was over. :confused:
it happened in Normandy if I remember correctly it was some Canadian soldiers
-
gah, just nuke iraq and solve the whole problem... :lol :aok :noid
-BigBOBCH
-
You want a crystal ball . There is no way to tell who will commit a crime like this . Period . If there was there would be no crime ever . Just whistle up the psyche eval. and bust em before the commit it in any place in life . As for psyche eval + training coming close , pipe dream dude . You know not of what you speak .
Lack of respect for another poster/person will get you nowhere, dude. No point arguing with that attitude of yours. A constructive answer might lead somewhere, obviously you are not interested in obtaining new information but merely belittle others.
-
Some of the responses here are beyond me.
<S> Marine...and good luck in court......your gonnnnnnna need it :salute
-
It's quite simple.. if he is a "Ex" Marine the military court can't charge him with anything. The only the civilian justice system can file charges against him at that point. If he commited a war crime while in the military it should be a military issue, however their hands are tied and they can not charge him, it would be up to the civilian courts to do at that time.
-
I believe we have already covered that issue with the recall to service concept.
He should IMO be recalled and tried by a military court. A civilian court has no business taking the responsibility for dealing with crimes such as this. The crime occurred while the accused was in another country for one, He was under the responsibility of the US military at the time the offences occurred.
The only agencies who have any business dealing with this matter are a US military court, an Iraqi court or the war crimes tribunal. If he has even a half decent defence attorney he should walk. He should be recalled and court marshalled.
-
<S> Marine...and good luck in court......your gonnnnnnna need it :salute
A happy ending... :salute
http://news.aol.com/article/ex-marine-acquitted-in-killing-of-iraqis/143836 (http://news.aol.com/article/ex-marine-acquitted-in-killing-of-iraqis/143836)
-
Court or no court, - did he pop unarmed captives or not?
-
Court or no court, - did he pop unarmed captives or not?
IT DEPENDS. were they in a room with nothing but walls? if there was even a chair, that could become a weapon very easily.........
-
Court or no court,
hey, we did away with lynch mobs years ago, do you still have them in Iceland?
-
So, under the cirkumstances, walls or no walls, what would you call a guy from another nation that would execute U.S. army captives?