Marines "Wantonly" Killed Iraqi Women & Children

[cmartyn 0]

I think its a good time to Bomb Iran, take the medias eye off of this one for a while..

My Lai ring any bells?

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

Edited June 1, 2006 by cmartyn

[Uxorious 0]

I say Bomb Canada!

If we 're going to take over the world might as well start closer to home, he, he. Also, lately, we've been hearing of this oil sand, eh?

[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.

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

LOL "if they are convicted". Are you guys reading my simple 2 sentence statements?

But yes... I agree with you, innocent until proven guilty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That's really the problem and it validates what a lot of people already think - that humanitarian concerns rank a distant second when the US sends its troops into 3rd world countries.

Further developments:

New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges

Edited June 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

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.

That's really the problem and it validates what a lot of people already think - that humanitarian concerns rank a distant second when the US sends its troops into 3rd world countries.

Further developments:

New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges

as a former soldier, i look at it differently. the oath taken states they will "protect and defend the constitution of the usa" which means any infractions a soldier commits will be dealt with by the us, not some kangaroo court in another country. you can carry on about this court in who cares where, but i bet you won't see that court you harp about sentencing someone to the death penalty, which us soldiers can face under ucmj...........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

as a former soldier, i look at it differently. the oath taken states they will "protect and defend the constitution of the usa" which means any infractions a soldier commits will be dealt with by the us, not some kangaroo court in another country.

Hardly a "Kangaroo court", though by that statement you do a pretty good job of dismissing something you clearly don't know the value of.

The point is that the international community has to trust the US government to properly investigate accusations of atrocities, not only by US soldiers, but those grey area 'independent contractors' the CIA has been using in recent years.

What happens say, when the CIA or US military blows up a 'justifiable' target somewhere in the back'o'beyond, killing a bunch of civilians in the process because someone in a control room decides civilian loss of life is 'justified'. Should the relatives of those people have a right to a fair hearing for the deceased and the right to reasonable reparation?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

as a former soldier, i look at it differently. the oath taken states they will "protect and defend the constitution of the usa" which means any infractions a soldier commits will be dealt with by the us, not some kangaroo court in another country.

Hardly a "Kangaroo court", though by that statement you do a pretty good job of dismissing something you clearly don't know the value of.

The point is that the international community has to trust the US government to properly investigate accusations of atrocities, not only by US soldiers, but those grey area 'independent contractors' the CIA has been using in recent years.

What happens say, when the CIA or US military blows up a 'justifiable' target somewhere in the back'o'beyond, killing a bunch of civilians in the process because someone in a control room decides civilian loss of life is 'justified'. Should the relatives of those people have a right to a fair hearing for the deceased and the right to reasonable reparation?

don't know the value of? or do you distrust the american court system that much to seek justice in another country? if so, i suggest you pack up and move to whereever if you have lost so much faith in our court system. i will never advocate turning over american soldiers to a foreign court. they are american soldiers and as such they will be tried and judged by americans, not some two bit banana republic judge.

as for the rest of your statement (last paragraph), that's mixing apples and oranges and is off topic.

Edited June 2, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

don't know the value of? or do you distrust the american court system that much to seek justice in another country? if so, i suggest you pack up and move to whereever if you have lost so much faith in our court system. i will never advocate turning over american soldiers to a foreign court. they are american soldiers and as such they will be tried and judged by americans, not some two bit banana republic judge.

A banana republic... yep that's what the rest of the world is all right Incidentally that's actually racist - a derogatory term for countries (typically African) who had broken away from the European imperial powers (back in the days where we were proudly flogging the "savages" in the diamond mines). A good 150 - 200 years ago... Makes you proud doesn't it?

To clarify, whether you or I have faith in the US justice system is irrelevant. If we're talking crimes that transcend national boundaries, specifically those such as Iraq where the whole basis of invasion is highly controversial - you would think it would be essential for incidents such as this to be independently investigated and brought to trial.

The US is part of the international community is it not? Or just when it suits itself to be?

Does it bother you that the US government is strengthening the position laid down by the previous administration, by going out and actively penalising countries which have chosen to participate in the ICC? What kind of message does that send to the world? You don't see that as somewhat unethical? Morally ambiguous? You don't think that sends a message to people, at the very same time that the US government is promoting 'freedom' and 'democracy' (at least in speeches) that the US answers to no other authority than itself.

as for the rest of your statement (last paragraph), that's mixing apples and oranges and is off topic.

How so? Can you comprehend the concept of potentially committing a crime and 'getting off scot free' via a legal loophole that you purposefully keep open just for that reason?

Edited June 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

don't know the value of? or do you distrust the american court system that much to seek justice in another country? if so, i suggest you pack up and move to whereever if you have lost so much faith in our court system. i will never advocate turning over american soldiers to a foreign court. they are american soldiers and as such they will be tried and judged by americans, not some two bit banana republic judge.

A banana republic... yep that's what the rest of the world is all right Incidentally that's actually racist - a derogatory term for countries (typically African) who had broken away from the European imperial powers (back in the days where we were proudly flogging the "savages" in the diamond mines). A good 150 - 200 years ago... Makes you proud doesn't it?

To clarify, whether you or I have faith in the US justice system is irrelevant. If we're talking crimes that transcend national boundaries, specifically those such as Iraq where the whole basis of invasion is highly controversial - you would think it would be essential for incidents such as this to be independently investigated and brought to trial.

The US is part of the international community is it not? Or just when it suits itself to be?

Does it bother you that the US government is strengthening the position laid down by the previous administration, by going out and actively penalising countries which have chosen to participate in the ICC? What kind of message does that send to the world? You don't see that as somewhat unethical? Morally ambiguous? You don't think that sends a message to people, at the very same time that the US government is promoting 'freedom' and 'democracy' (at least in speeches) that the US answers to no other authority than itself.

as for the rest of your statement (last paragraph), that's mixing apples and oranges and is off topic.

How so? Can you comprehend the concept of potentially committing a crime and 'getting off scot free' via a legal loophole that you purposefully keep open just for that reason?

banana republic can mean whatever you want. i don't give a hoot. by your posts you don't trust american justice. you'd rather turn it over to europeans or whoever because you have the idea that justice will be better served there. i disagree. slice it how you want. my statement stands. if you don't like the us judicial system, feel free to move. and we were not talking about the us doing this or that with whoever did whatever with the icc. quit trying to get off topic. us soldiers know that they will be kept within the us court system, not be made an ax for some 3rd rate country to grind because that country has a gripe about the usa. as for the us soldiers in the original part of this topic, they'll get far worse than anything your icc will dish out. just wait and see.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

banana republic can mean whatever you want. i don't give a hoot. by your posts you don't trust american justice. you'd rather turn it over to europeans or whoever because you have the idea that justice will be better served there. i disagree. slice it how you want. my statement stands. if you don't like the us judicial system, feel free to move. and we were not talking about the us doing this or that with whoever did whatever with the icc. quit trying to get off topic. us soldiers know that they will be kept within the us court system, not be made an ax for some 3rd rate country to grind because that country has a gripe about the usa. as for the us soldiers in the original part of this topic, they'll get far worse than anything your icc will dish out. just wait and see.

As I said its not about whether you or I trust American justice, the point is that as part of a large international community who claim to share the same moral and ethical values that we act accordingly. In any case, I'm not going anywhere In fact, your question might as well be - why should the Iraqis trust American justice? Seeing as that justice is best measured by how transparently and to what extent it is prosecuted.

The problem here is that Iraq is so highly controversial that ANY investigation of this issue automatically becomes equally controversial and from a certain point of view, highly suspect. I'm not necessarily saying that the military or the government will not do a thorough job of investigating and bringing people to trial, if there is a case to answer for - its the simple fact that the government (via a deeply unpopular policy in Iraq) dealing with this in-house is like handling a white table cloth with oily hands.

Excusing the fact that you're clearly getting very agitated over this topic - you've already pretty much said that any country outside of the US is 3rd rate. That to me illustrates the problem - and feeds the perception that America holds itself to ideas of justice quite outside of that of the broader international community.

Again let me ask you - why do you think the US government is withdrawing aid funding from countries who participate in the ICC? What purpose does that serve - and what message does it send, specifically to say, the 'liberated' people of Iraq?

Just asking questions is all - no need to get crazy. The sun will still appear in the east tomorrow morning

Edited June 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

The idea of the ICC is not to undermine national justice systems but intenational justic e disputes. The marines supposedly killed 24 Iraqis which raises the question where they should be tried. Normally, since the Iraq is the location of the murders and the victims citizens of Iraq, the marines should be tried in Iraq. However because the US claims authority for its troops, they will be tried in the US even if Iraq rightfully demanded extradition.

What will happen is that if the marines are sentenced by a US court, Iraqis will complain that the court is biased because the US is engaged in a war against Iraq (or against insurgents in Iraq or whatever you want to call it, but you get the idea). Now, if the soldiers were tried in Iraq, no matter what the verdict would be, Americans would assume that the trial was unfair.

This is the situation in which the ICC could come in. As an international criminal court, it is not representative of a nation or a continent, but rather of the entire international community. If the US had signed the treaty (like the 60 signatories) the court could help resolve the situation in a much better way than national courts.

Btw, the ICC is based on a institution brought to life by the US, the Nuremberg War Crimes court. I assume that noone opposing the ICC would consider that to be an unfair court, but just the fact that the US once had a vital interest in international justice and now is 100% opposed to it, shows how far from it's own principles the country has moved.

One last thing, calling human beings in Iraq animals even if they are terrorists animals is morally wrong especially in this context and makes you no better than a terrorist. The reason the marines went beserk is that they had lost their respect for humanity, you might even they justifiedly; by dehumanizing people and calling them animals, you (as in one) are effectively doing the same. But once you take the step and dehumanize people, you lose your right to complain about the ways in which you're dehumanized by the other side. I was more than disgusted by this aspect of this thread...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What will happen is that if the marines are sentenced by a US court, Iraqis will complain that the court is biased because the US is engaged in a war against Iraq (or against insurgents in Iraq or whatever you want to call it, but you get the idea). Now, if the soldiers were tried in Iraq, no matter what the verdict would be, Americans would assume that the trial was unfair.

This is the situation in which the ICC could come in. As an international criminal court, it is not representative of a nation or a continent, but rather of the entire international community. If the US had signed the treaty (like the 60 signatories) the court could help resolve the situation in a much better way than national courts.

Indeed. The sheer controversy about Iraq makes the US government putting its hands on this an instant #######-blossom, no matter how fair and open they are prepared to be.

One last thing, calling human beings in Iraq animals even if they are terrorists animals is morally wrong especially in this context and makes you no better than a terrorist. The reason the marines went beserk is that they had lost their respect for humanity, you might even they justifiedly; by dehumanizing people and calling them animals, you (as in one) are effectively doing the same. But once you take the step and dehumanize people, you lose your right to complain about the ways in which you're dehumanized by the other side. I was more than disgusted by this aspect of this thread...

Unfortunately its part and parcel of where we are right now. Again, if this is true this amounts to a horrible crime, yet whenever something like this comes to light the immediate reaction is either to say "this is somehow inevitable in war" (and therefore justified as 'cracking eggs to make an ommelette) or to contrast it by comparing it to "how evil and un-human" the enemy are.

This is merely the end result of all the rhetoric and bluster that took us into this conflict. The US claims to hold the high moral standard in the 'war on terror', we shouldn't be surprised when issues like this rise to the fore as yet further evidence not only that the conflict was a bad idea, but that it was poorly planned and implemented also.

[iceyspots 0]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some more developments.

Troops cleared of Iraq wrongdoing

Unfortunately what happens when you piss away public trust, is even when you are telling the truth, people still think you're lying.

Catch 22.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Some more developments.

Troops cleared of Iraq wrongdoing

Unfortunately what happens when you piss away public trust, is even when you are telling the truth, people still think you're lying.

Catch 22.

Just to make it clear: This links to a BBC article that refers to alleged misconduct of U.S. troops in the Iraqi town of Ishaqi. The article I posted refers to completely separate events that allegedly occured in Haditha.

Edited June 3, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud