|
We are supposed to believe every word breathed by the Gitmo detainees defense lawyers, but somehow I doubt we will be told to believe any of this nonsense. |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
McQ:
I don’t think that Murtha will pay attention to this at all. Your attempt is too obvious: "support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq" has nothing to do with the requirement to punish capital crimes committed in Iraq.
Allow me to use part of your posting: diluting judicial standards for Iraq would set a
"dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to"
believing that atrocities against Iraqis count as excusable collateral damage.
Michael |
| |
Written By:
Michael Konecny
URL:
http://
|
The marines are GUILTY get over it - they murdered innocent civilians in a revenge for the IED that killed one of their own.
THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS
So you set the TARDIS/Way-Back Machine and you and Dr Who/Your Trusty Boy Sherman videotaped the whole thing, from multiple angles? Please, the YouTube address for the film....
|
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
diluting judicial standards for Iraq would set a
"dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to"
believing that atrocities against Iraqis count as excusable collateral damage. The hearing officer disputes the FACTS, dude, read the article...there isn’t any forensic evidence and the witness accounts are unreliable. There is NO case...you know like the Duke Lacrosse Team. It’s not the "seriousness of the allegations" it’s the "Nature of the evidence". You seem to assume that what was CLAIMED actually happened and that this move is a move to justify the acts, when there is little evidence that what was claimed occurred! |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
I don’t think that Murtha will pay attention to this at all. Your attempt is too obvious: "support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq" has nothing to do with the requirement to punish capital crimes committed in Iraq. Well first, Michael, there has to be proof of capital crimes in Iraq, and it appears, at least based on the Article 32 officer’s statement, that proof doesn’t appear to exist.
Now, who should I believe ... an officer whose job it is to do a thorough and unbiased investigation to determine if criminal prosecution should proceed and has had the opportunity to minutely examine all the evidence and reach an informed conclusion ... or you/Jack Murtha? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
If you don’t think the military is capable of investigating war crimes, see the case involving the My Lai Massacre.
There, the Article 32 officer recommended courts martial for Captain Medina, Lieutenant Calley and several enlisted men.
When the facts make out the case, the military system generally works well in these matters.
At least that was my experience in 1967-1968 where I conducted 20+ Article 32 investigations throughout RVN. |
| |
Written By:
vnjagvet
URL:
http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
|
vnjaget, I agree with you; My Lai resulted in prosecutions; because of the testimony of military personnel who were at My Lai.
It may be a surprise to many others, but the US criminal justice system (federal, state, and military) actually prosecutes its own members who violate the laws. It isn’t perfect (no system made by men to deal with men is) but it actually does prosecute its own members. |
| |
Written By:
Mikey
URL:
http://
|
