Marines "Wantonly" Killed Iraqi Women & Children

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From todays news:

Bush 'troubled' by Haditha report

The problem here is that if this had been committed by European troops, they would be tried very publicly in an international war crimes court. The US government, in its infinite wisdom decides to deal with the incident in-house. There's transparency for you.

hardly the case at all. they'll do no less than 10 years at the usdb. show me an example of any european troops being sentenced to anything longer.

Show me an example of a comparable atrocity.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

From todays news:

Bush 'troubled' by Haditha report

The problem here is that if this had been committed by European troops, they would be tried very publicly in an international war crimes court. The US government, in its infinite wisdom decides to deal with the incident in-house. There's transparency for you.

hardly the case at all. they'll do no less than 10 years at the usdb. show me an example of any european troops being sentenced to anything longer.

Show me an example of a comparable atrocity.

that's your bailiwick. but just wait till they get sentenced before you start harping about they should be given to some war crimes court. the us will be far harsher on them. bet on it. another my lai won't be tolerated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

that's your bailiwick. but just wait till they get sentenced before you start harping about they should be given to some war crimes court. the us will be far harsher on them. bet on it. another my lai won't be tolerated.

Sure, but its a valid question - just curious to know if similar atrocities have been committed by other allied countries.

In any case... not 'some' war crimes court, THE war crimes court. I'm sure the soldiers will be punished, not disputing that. The government will HAVE TO investigate these charges and ensure anyone guilty of a crime is punished.

There's an issue here of transparency, the perception that the US holds itself accountable only to itself and not the international community. One law for us, another for everyone else.

With apologies for the Wikipedia link, its the quickest way of pulling together information without trawling for old stories through the news sites. United States and the International Criminal Court

Still.. some interesting reading.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

that's your bailiwick. but just wait till they get sentenced before you start harping about they should be given to some war crimes court. the us will be far harsher on them. bet on it. another my lai won't be tolerated.

Sure, but its a valid question - just curious to know if similar atrocities have been committed by other allied countries.

In any case... not 'some' war crimes court, THE war crimes court. I'm sure the soldiers will be punished, not disputing that. The government will HAVE TO investigate these charges and ensure anyone guilty of a crime is punished.

There's an issue here of transparency, the perception that the US holds itself accountable only to itself and not the international community. One law for us, another for everyone else.

With apologies for the Wikipedia link, its the quickest way of pulling together information without trawling for old stories through the news sites. United States and the International Criminal Court

Still.. some interesting reading.

perhaps so, but i'm certain that they will receive a longer sentence in the usa, AND the time served at the usdb will be far harsher than any european prison. i'm still waiting to see what they will be charged with under the ucmj.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps so, but i'm certain that they will receive a longer sentence in the usa, AND the time served at the usdb will be far harsher than any european prison. i'm still waiting to see what they will be charged with under the ucmj.

Sure but if this is as it sounds, and this is pre-meditated murder - the appropriate sentence in almost any country is 25-life. Anything less (assuming the current claims as presented are accurate) would be seen as the US giving its people a 'light touch'.

Precisely illustrates the usefulness of an independent court...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

Justice hasn't been done yet. In fact, the truth or untruth of the rumours has yet to be confirmed.

If it is true, a lot will ride on the 'quality' of our justice.

[Chuckles 0]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

Yes, I define much of the Iraqi insurgency as animals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

Yes, I define much of the Iraqi insurgency as animals.

Fair enough. But does that in any way justify our own beastliness?

Again... if this is true, how is it different?

[rodney22 0]

Similiar atrocity: the cartoons of the prophet. (sarcasm included)

[Chuckles 0]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

Yes, I define much of the Iraqi insurgency as animals.

Fair enough. But does that in any way justify our own beastliness?

Again... if this is true, how is it different?

It justifies nothing. I'm all for the marines getting maximum sentencing if they are convicted of the crime. I thought I expressed that already.

[ual777 0]

They will see justice... That is the point of the article. Their opponents who commit similar crimes will not. That enough for you?

true. we live by a higher standard than the 'animals'

Yes, I define much of the Iraqi insurgency as animals.

Fair enough. But does that in any way justify our own beastliness?

Again... if this is true, how is it different?

It justifies nothing. I'm all for the marines getting maximum sentencing if they are convicted of the crime. I thought I expressed that already.

Innocent until proven guilty my friends, innocent until proven guilty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Similiar atrocity: the cartoons of the prophet. (sarcasm included)

I was curious as to whether other coalition troops have been charged with similar war crimes.

The cartoons of the prophet (and the reaction to them) are not 'war crimes', of course that's not to say they won't be used to justify atrocities against western citizens.

The mass graves that they dig up from time to time are a different story of course.

It justifies nothing. I'm all for the marines getting maximum sentencing if they are convicted of the crime. I thought I expressed that already.

With apologies if I misread your earlier post

Do you remember back when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke? Some folks seemed to be of the opinion that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, for example, was somehow justified because it was amounted to a 'lesser' atrocity than, say, those who behead western hostages in front of a video camera.

That's by the by - I just think its interesting that with the situation we are in right now, that the US Govt has to proceed carefully on this issue and ensure that if any crimes have been committed, justice will be seen to be done. And I'm not talking about Europe here - but the hearts and minds of the people the US is trying to democratise - because in the end, this sort of thing makes it more dangerous for the majority of law abiding troops in Iraq. It also highlights the usefulness of an independent international court to deal with these kinds of things. Yet in their infinite wisdom, the Clinton administration decided that they didn't want US troops being charged by a foreign court.

This has been compounded in recent years by the fact that the current administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that their citizens and military personnel are excluded from the jurisdiction of the ICC, even to the extent of cutting aid funding to 3rd world countries who participate in it.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Uxorious 0]

From todays news:

Bush 'troubled' by Haditha report

The problem here is that if this had been committed by European troops, they would be tried very publicly in an international war crimes court. The US government, in its infinite wisdom decides to deal with the incident in-house. There's transparency for you.

just another cover-up, boys ... no big deal, right??

This sort of thing has been a major public relations problem for the armed forces, and by extension the US government.

If true, this will be the first major outright atrocity committed by US troops, far beyond anything that took place at Abu Ghraib. Exactly the reason US should have signed up to the international criminal court.

This is exactly the reason why the US did not sign the ICC treaty. As a hyper-power, it sends its troops all over the map more so than other nations. Consequently, American troops are more likely to get involved in such controversial acts of alleged atrocities. And the US gov. does not want to see its trrops tried in ICC.

When you send young men to war under any euphemism-peace-keeping, police action etc- this type of atrocity is bound to happen. Those commited by the winning side get played down for the most part .

These are young men trained to kill regardless of the code of ethics or moral values. When they are threatened or feel threatened, they will kill.

That's why we should not be too trigger happy as we have been of late.

[slim 1,525]

My Lai ring any bells?

It seems the government didn't learn anything from Vietnam, and probably won't from Iraq either.

As far as cover-up and punishment, etc., remember, this is the same administration that gave Jessica Lynch a Silver Star for "dropping her weapon and crying" in the face of enemy fire, then had the audacity to convict enlisted soldiers at Abu Ghraib for following orders.