|
On January 24 2012 08:28 Anytus wrote:
Before everyone here jumps to conclusions, realize that the prosecution had very little evidence. What I believe these men did is despicable. In a perfect world, they would ABSOLUTELY go to prison for most if not all of their lives. However, there just isn't the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they murdered or committed manslaughter. Basically no forensics were taken, no Iraquis testified, and the only other testimony came from other defendants (who clearly had a conflict of interest, lie to save themselves).
As sad and horrible this is, this is how the American justice system SHOULD work. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Murderers go free in the US; it is the price we pay for trying to not put innocent people in prison.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, if he did it he should be convicted but without real proof they can't do anything.
|
On January 24 2012 08:47 Notfragile wrote:
Read the OP. "The final US Marine to face charges over the killing of unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 has pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty."
They even admitted it was them. It's not about doubts, there are no doubts.
He pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty in the orders he gave his men. Basically he admitted to not giving appropriate orders to his squad. He never admitted to killing or murdering anyone.
He MIGHT claim that his men killed and murdered people but that wouldn't matter. To even get him to admit to dereliction, the NCIS already had to give immunity to 6 other soldiers so that they would testify against him. They can't re-try the ones they already gave immunity to.
So basically what happened is this. They had NO evidence. They convinced 6 of the soldiers to testify against 1 other one in exchange for immunity. The testimony still wasn't enough to prove murder. It was enough to prove that he gave bad orders to his men. The last soldier might still claim that he didn't kill anyone, it was all the other guys. Who do we believe? Because im sure that each soldier will say he didnt shoot anyone and it was all the other guys.
|
10387 Posts
This has been covered quite a bit on NPR, so here are my thoughts based off of what I've heard
Yes, its horrific, and they got off a bit too lightly. But .. as one of the people who spoke on the radio had said (some professor who was a former marine), these were young men who, when overseas serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, spend every minute of their waking lives in fear of the very real possibility of being killed (something to that extent). And when you're under such heavy pressure/anxiety, it does mess with the person's head.
While it's Wuterich is definitely responsible for his squad's actions and deserves punishment, I think the real anger should be directed to the people who placed him and other marines in such a shitty situation in the first place
|
You need overwhelming evidence for American court systems. It's designed to always be in favor of the defendant.
|
On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote:
This has been covered quite a bit on NPR, so here are my thoughts based off of what I've heard
Yes, its horrific, and they got off a bit too lightly. But .. as one of the people who spoke on the radio had said (some professor who was a former marine), these were young men who, when overseas serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, spend every minute of their waking lives in fear of the very real possibility of being killed (something to that extent). And when you're under such heavy pressure/anxiety, it does mess with the person's head.
While it's Wuterich is definitely responsible for his squad's actions and deserves punishment, I think the real anger should be directed to the people who placed him and other marines in such a shitty situation in the first place
The next time a terrorist from a country we invaded bombs us for a change, I hope you remember this.
|
On January 24 2012 08:56 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote:
This has been covered quite a bit on NPR, so here are my thoughts based off of what I've heard
Yes, its horrific, and they got off a bit too lightly. But .. as one of the people who spoke on the radio had said (some professor who was a former marine), these were young men who, when overseas serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, spend every minute of their waking lives in fear of the very real possibility of being killed (something to that extent). And when you're under such heavy pressure/anxiety, it does mess with the person's head.
While it's Wuterich is definitely responsible for his squad's actions and deserves punishment, I think the real anger should be directed to the people who placed him and other marines in such a shitty situation in the first place The next time a terrorist from a country we invaded bombs us for a change, I hope you remember this.
Political rhetoric one liner.
ZiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIng.
|
On January 24 2012 08:57 Gamegene wrote:
Political rhetoric one liner.
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.
One more I.
|
10387 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:56 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote:
This has been covered quite a bit on NPR, so here are my thoughts based off of what I've heard
Yes, its horrific, and they got off a bit too lightly. But .. as one of the people who spoke on the radio had said (some professor who was a former marine), these were young men who, when overseas serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, spend every minute of their waking lives in fear of the very real possibility of being killed (something to that extent). And when you're under such heavy pressure/anxiety, it does mess with the person's head.
While it's Wuterich is definitely responsible for his squad's actions and deserves punishment, I think the real anger should be directed to the people who placed him and other marines in such a shitty situation in the first place The next time a terrorist from a country we invaded bombs us for a change, I hope you remember this.
wtf does that have to do with what I said
|
On January 24 2012 08:28 Anytus wrote:
Before everyone here jumps to conclusions, realize that the prosecution had very little evidence. What I believe these men did is despicable. In a perfect world, they would ABSOLUTELY go to prison for most if not all of their lives. However, there just isn't the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they murdered or committed manslaughter. Basically no forensics were taken, no Iraquis testified, and the only other testimony came from other defendants (who clearly had a conflict of interest, lie to save themselves).
As sad and horrible this is, this is how the American justice system SHOULD work. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Murderers go free in the US; it is the price we pay for trying to not put innocent people in prison.
Even if what you say is true, it's still a failure of the justice system if they can't build a case out of what they had. This isn't a cold case of a body found in a forest. There was TONS of evidence to be had, so if they didn't have any of it then the system failed.
|
On January 24 2012 08:56 acker wrote:
The next time a terrorist from a country we invaded bombs us for a change, I hope you remember this.
I see your point. There is a principled difference here though. Presumably the soldiers in question 'snapped' and would not do what they did again, if they had cool heads. If, instead, an Iraqi whose family was killed in this massacre bombs the US years later, can we really say the same about him? Doing something after years of planning seems a little different than having a breakdown and doing something in a moment.
|
On January 24 2012 08:59 BlackJack wrote:
Even if what you say is true, it's still a failure of the justice system if they can't build a case out of what they had. This isn't a cold case of a body found in a forest. There was TONS of evidence to be had, so if they didn't have any of it then the system failed.
I totally agree. The system absolutely failed because we know that these guys did this and yet we couldn't prove it. Lots of people could and should have done a better job. I'd like to see you, me, or anyone go back to 2005 and convince NCIS to go into Iraq where a bunch of civilians were just killed and collect evidence though. Good luck. Definitely should have happened, but I don't see how it could have.
|
the guy saw the atrocities of war and took it out on the wrong people. Smh nothing good ever comes out of war.
|
On January 24 2012 08:50 Kluey wrote:
And the war on "terrorism" continues! We're protecting the West, right? No, this 'war' is the most fucking pointless shit I've ever seen. USA could be defensive and improve their security but they decide to attack Iraq. Why does no one in the world think that's kind of 'personal matters' for US? The United Nations should punish USA for this and stop the war.
I think the Iraqi's that now enjoy small things like freedom of speech and freedom of press wouldn't exactly call it "pointless shit."
I also like that they have to stop the war. Not sure if you have been keeping up on recent events but you might have missed that fact that the last US troops already left Iraq.
Also, would be kinda strange for the UN to place sanctions on the USA for enaging in a UN sanctioned war.
Simple facts are that the Iraqi's now have insanely more freedom then they did under Saddam and they are now reaping their fair share of the oil profits.
Oil is now actually going into the pockets of the Iraqi people rather then Saddam, his family and his friends.
Saddam was one of the worst dictators in world when he was still alive. He got overthrown, the only sad thing about that was that it didn't happen during the first gulf war.
He ran a totalitarian state like no other. Torture, murder and even genocide. The reason we got for going into Iraq might not have been to get rid of this guy but it sure as hell makes up for all of it.
Not even 10 year ago an Iraqi citizen and his whole family would have been dragged off to a torture or rape prison if he/she even dared to speak out against the Saddam family. Meanwhile the Saddam family engaged in war after war and plundered the oil profits that belonged to the people.
Iraq today is immensely better off then it was under Saddam. Not just in terms of freedom (altough the shift is monumental) but also in future prospects. The economy is on the rise, their democratic system has by all standards been a succes.
Iraqi's are free from one of the worst dictators the world had. Now they can vote for whatever they like and say whatever they like. Iraq was a great succes and 20 years down the road people will have to eat their words as it's economy keeps growing, the people have a future, and they will be free to speak their mind and control their own country.
America might not have gotten much out of it but the Iraqi people got a future.
|
On January 24 2012 08:59 Anytus wrote:
Presumably the soldiers in question 'snapped' and would not do what they did again, if they had cool heads. If, instead, an Iraqi whose family was killed in this massacre bombs the US years later, can we really say the same about him? Doing something after years of planning seems a little different than having a breakdown and doing something in a moment.
What if the terrorist detonates explosives in our consulate in Iraq? Would you still be inclined to say this?
On January 24 2012 08:59 ArvickHero wrote:
wtf does that have to do with what I said
Apparently, you are of the opinion that hard times cause people to do irrational things. I completely agree. But I was wondering if you applied the same standards to people who have a harder time out there than the Army.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 24 2012 09:04 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:50 Kluey wrote:
And the war on "terrorism" continues! We're protecting the West, right? No, this 'war' is the most fucking pointless shit I've ever seen. USA could be defensive and improve their security but they decide to attack Iraq. Why does no one in the world think that's kind of 'personal matters' for US? The United Nations should punish USA for this and stop the war. I think the Iraqi's that now enjoy small things like freedom of speech and freedom of press wouldn't exactly call it "pointless shit." I also like that they have to stop the war. Not sure if you have been keeping up on recent events but you might have missed that fact that the last US troops already left Iraq. Also, would be kinda strange for the UN to place sanctions on the USA for enaging in a UN sanctioned war. Simple facts are that the Iraqi's now have insanely more freedom then they did under Saddam and they are now reaping their fair share of the oil profits. Oil is now actually going into the pockets of the Iraqi people rather then Saddam, his family and his friends. Saddam was one of the worst dictators in world when he was still alive. He got overthrown, the only sad thing about that was that it didn't happen during the first gulf war. He ran a totalitarian state like no other. Torture, murder and even genocide. The reason we got for going into Iraq might not have been to get rid of this guy but it sure as hell makes up for all of it. Not even 10 year ago an Iraqi citizen and his whole family would have been dragged off to a torture or rape prison if he/she even dared to speak out against the Saddam family. Meanwhile the Saddam family engaged in war after war and plundered the oil profits that belonged to the people. Iraq today is immensely better off then it was under Saddam. Not just in terms of freedom (altough the shift is monumental) but also in future prospects. The economy is on the rise, their democratic system has by all standards been a succes. Iraqi's are free from one of the worst dictators the world had. Now they can vote for whatever they like and say whatever they like. Iraq was a great succes and 20 years down the road people will have to eat their words as it's economy keeps growing, the people have a future, and they will be free to speak their mind and control their own country. America might not have gotten much out of it but the Iraqi people got a future.
But we dont want to forget, that Saddam was a good buddy as long as he did what the US wanted him to do after the iran mess they caused? 
|
Sometimes I hate my nation. I'm dealing with too much shit coming from my own nation these days. Attempted oppression of rights, mass ignorance, extremely corrupt politicians and now this fiasco.
|
On January 24 2012 09:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:59 Anytus wrote:
Presumably the soldiers in question 'snapped' and would not do what they did again, if they had cool heads. If, instead, an Iraqi whose family was killed in this massacre bombs the US years later, can we really say the same about him? Doing something after years of planning seems a little different than having a breakdown and doing something in a moment. What if the terrorist detonates explosives in our consulate in Iraq? Would you still be inclined to say this?
I'd be inclined to say then that the situations are more similar, yeah. But keep in mind that I also said that these soldiers should go to prison, in a perfect world. So, similarly if there was evidence to prove that this Iraqi did it then of course he should go to jail, otherwise then he should be acquitted due to insufficient evidence. I'll point out though that he'd probably have to have the bomb already made and ready to go to qualify as being manslaughter rather than murder in the US.
|
On January 24 2012 08:45 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:42 perser84 wrote:
so as long i dont leave evidence behind i can make war crimes just like the nazis in WW2 and get away with it
yeah truly great Sadly, yes. If you commit a crime and leave absolutely no evidence, you can get away with it. Why? because there's no principled way to differentiate between you and an innocent person. I'll say it again just to clarify. I believe that these marines massacred those people and I'd like them to be punished for it with long long long jail sentences.
If they did not prove them guilty, then they should be aquitted and walk free. Why was there a sentence at all? Because the court has decided that they are guilty. Now explain why the sentence is so light.
|
On January 24 2012 09:18 pylonsalad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:45 Anytus wrote:On January 24 2012 08:42 perser84 wrote:
so as long i dont leave evidence behind i can make war crimes just like the nazis in WW2 and get away with it
yeah truly great Sadly, yes. If you commit a crime and leave absolutely no evidence, you can get away with it. Why? because there's no principled way to differentiate between you and an innocent person. I'll say it again just to clarify. I believe that these marines massacred those people and I'd like them to be punished for it with long long long jail sentences. If they did not prove them guilty, then they should be aquitted and walk free. Why was there a sentence at all? Because the court has decided that they are guilty. Now explain why the sentence is so light.
It is not as simple as just guilty or just not-guilty. 6 of the soldiers were given immunity. 1 was found not the guilty of all charges. The final 1 was convicted of dereliction of duty, not murder or manslaughter or negligent homicide.
The punishment is light because of the crime he was convicted of: giving poor orders to his troops. Had he been convicted of murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide then I don't think there is any way he could get only 3 months.
Its like if I were accused of killing someone because you paid me $10,000 dollars. Maybe they can't prove that I actually killed the guy. But, maybe they can prove that you gave me the money and I didn't report it to the IRS for my taxes. Then they'd convict me of tax evasion (a crime which still carries a sentence of more than 3 months I'll add) but not murder, so comparatively my sentence would be light, even though its obvious that the only reason you would pay me the money is for me to kill the guy.
|
On January 24 2012 08:56 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote:
This has been covered quite a bit on NPR, so here are my thoughts based off of what I've heard
Yes, its horrific, and they got off a bit too lightly. But .. as one of the people who spoke on the radio had said (some professor who was a former marine), these were young men who, when overseas serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, spend every minute of their waking lives in fear of the very real possibility of being killed (something to that extent). And when you're under such heavy pressure/anxiety, it does mess with the person's head.
While it's Wuterich is definitely responsible for his squad's actions and deserves punishment, I think the real anger should be directed to the people who placed him and other marines in such a shitty situation in the first place The next time a terrorist from a country we invaded bombs us for a change, I hope you remember this.
does this mean you find terrorist bombing to be an appropriate penalty, more so than a judicial system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
