|
On January 28 2012 09:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Personally I think it a fair sentence. It's war, it's the military involved, and something that happened 5 years ago (especially if he hasn't done anything wrong since then) doesn't need to be punished harshly. The US likes giving really mean sentences, and maybe it's because I live in Canada, where getting caught with pot by the cop results in a warning and a small fine with cocaine.
I'd hate to be in the position of the families that lost their siblings etc, but human life isn't priceless, the military made some mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things 24 deaths excuse the huge successes of the military, and it's not like he wasn't a good soldier.
This was not a mistake and it is not isolated incident. He was not a good soldier and what success are you talking about ?
Anyway, "it's war" is not an excuse, it was not an excuse for a long time. There was nothing accidental in this massacre and those 24 deaths were in no way "necessary" for the success of military operations, if anything they endangered military operations. So there is not even the grand scheme of things excuse.
|
On January 28 2012 10:16 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 09:59 Orcasgt24 wrote:
In basic training, instructors train these men and women to kill. They are trained to belive killing another human is ok. This must be factored into sentencing a solider for any crimes they commit while on-duty.
While I agree that 3 months is insanely light for a sentence, I also feel that life in prison is too long. I think a 5 year term would be justifiable. Sure, slaughter 20 odd innocent women, children, and old men, serve 5 years in prison! Seems fair.
He did not slaughter them.
People should read about this incident before commenting.
|
Same old dumb mistake as always. The higher-ups don't want this event to become public, probably fearing bad publicity, so they do everything they can to cover it up. Surpriiise! The media discovers it anyway and it backfires and has a way bigger impact then if they'd just dealt with it regularly.
|
On January 28 2012 19:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:16 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 28 2012 09:59 Orcasgt24 wrote:
In basic training, instructors train these men and women to kill. They are trained to belive killing another human is ok. This must be factored into sentencing a solider for any crimes they commit while on-duty.
While I agree that 3 months is insanely light for a sentence, I also feel that life in prison is too long. I think a 5 year term would be justifiable. Sure, slaughter 20 odd innocent women, children, and old men, serve 5 years in prison! Seems fair. He did not slaughter them. People should read about this incident before commenting.
He ordered his men to do so, he didn't step in to stop them. By accepted international law he is responsible.
|
On January 29 2012 01:06 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 19:18 mcc wrote:On January 28 2012 10:16 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 28 2012 09:59 Orcasgt24 wrote:
In basic training, instructors train these men and women to kill. They are trained to belive killing another human is ok. This must be factored into sentencing a solider for any crimes they commit while on-duty.
While I agree that 3 months is insanely light for a sentence, I also feel that life in prison is too long. I think a 5 year term would be justifiable. Sure, slaughter 20 odd innocent women, children, and old men, serve 5 years in prison! Seems fair. He did not slaughter them. People should read about this incident before commenting. He ordered his men to do so, he didn't step in to stop them. By accepted international law he is responsible.
As far as I know he did not order them to do so. His responsibility is purely that he was commanding officer and it happened on his watch. He was not present when they did so. Of course my statements might be wrong, but that is as far as is known.
|
SCOTT PELLEY: You hear noises behind a closed door?
SGT. FRANK WUTERICH: Correct.
SCOTT PELLEY: What happened then?
SGT. FRANK WUTERICH: Kicked in the door, threw the grenade in. Grenade goes off. The first man enters a room and engages the—engages the people in the room.
SCOTT PELLEY: You didn’t fire any rounds in the house?
SGT. FRANK WUTERICH: No, I did not.
SCOTT PELLEY: Frank, help me—help me understand. You’re in a residence. How do you crack a door open and roll a grenade into a room?
SGT. FRANK WUTERICH: At that point, you know, you can’t—you can’t hesitate to make a decision. Hesitation, you know, equals being killed—you know, either yourself or your men.
SCOTT PELLEY: But when you roll a grenade into a room through a crack in the door, that’s not positive identification. That’s taking a chance on anything that can be behind that door.
SGT. FRANK WUTERICH: Well, that’s—you know, that’s—that’s what we do. That’s how our training goes.
Wuterich's 60 minute interview.
And not stopping a massacre means you take responsibility for it. That is established law, established by the American military infact.
edit: And also
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich "apparently admits in an unaired segment that he did in fact order his men to 'shoot first and ask questions later,'" Capt. Nicholas Gannon said in response to a motion filed by CBS seeking to quash a subpoena seeking the footage.
from cbsnews.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/22/iraq/main3862292.shtml
And from wikipedia
Trial 2012
During the trial Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz testified that he urinated on the skull of one of the dead Iraqis.[61] He also testified after describing how Wuterich shot the passengers of the car himself from close range ,"Sergeant Wuterich approached me and told me if anyone asks, the Iraqis were running away from the car and the Iraqi army shot them,".[62]
|
I forget how to quote goes, but the victor of any "war" can rewrite history as he sees fit. I am sure that in any other universe where the U.S. was not victorious in its occupation of Iraq, there would be a military tribunal convicting these soldiers of war crimes.
But this is the universe where U.S. military can get away with murder with just a slap on the wrist, Iraq or anyone else for that matter really can't do a damn thing about it, and another violation of human ethics gets swept under the rug.
I don't condone this behavior in the slightest, but it's just the way it is. :/
|
On January 29 2012 13:40 SwizzY wrote:
I forget how to quote goes, but the victor of any "war" can rewrite history as he sees fit. I am sure that in any other universe where the U.S. was not victorious in its occupation of Iraq, there would be a military tribunal convicting these soldiers of war crimes.
But this is the universe where U.S. military can get away with murder with just a slap on the wrist, Iraq or anyone else for that matter really can't do a damn thing about it, and another violation of human ethics gets swept under the rug.
I don't condone this behavior in the slightest, but it's just the way it is. :/
Nothing has been worse than WWII considering the writing of history. The fact that the US are winning here is imo, irrelevant, it's linked due to the fact they're (still) the n°1 power and their main rivals have other problems/interest than shitting on them about this kind of conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
