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. Sgt Frank Wuterich was one of eight Marines charged with murder or failure to investigate the killings. but now faces just three months in jail.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted. Sgt Wuterich reached a plea deal to bring an end to the most notorious case against US troops from the Iraq war.
He faces a maximum of three months confinement, two-thirds forfeiture of pay and a demotion to the rank of private.
Before the plea, he faced several counts of manslaughter.
He is expected to be sentenced on Tuesday.
Sgt Wuterich's guilty plea ended an ongoing trial at Camp Pendleton, California, almost seven years after the events in question.
Prosecutors argued that on the day of the killings Sgt Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.
Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.
His former squad members testified during the hearings that they did not receive any incoming gunfire during nor find any weapons at the scene of the killings.
His defence said he did the best he could in the "fog of war" and that his squad truly believed they were on a search for insurgents. Several of them said that they feared insurgents were hiding nearby and they had not done anything wrong by opening fire.
While the events in Haditha occurred in November 2005, an investigation did not begin until a local human rights activist went public with video footage of the aftermath.
A subsequent investigation by Time magazine suggested that most of the dead were shot by Marines - and in March 2006 a criminal investigation was begun.
The following month, three officers in charge of troops in Haditha were stripped of their command and reassigned.
Sgt Wuterich's trial was delayed for years by debate between the defence and prosecution - including whether or not they could show previously unseen footage from a 60 Minutes interview he gave to US network CBS in 2007.
After being dubbed "the butcher of Haditha", Sgt Wuterich said he had consented to the interview because he wanted the truth to come out after being called a "monster" and a "baby killer".
Prosecutors eventually won the right to show the entire interview.
The Haditha killings were cited as a key reason why Iraqi officials refused to give US troops immunity from their court system.
That sticking point helped contribute to the eventual pullout of US troops from Iraq at the end of 2011.
I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US. These men should all be in jail for life and now they walk freely (you probably get more than 3months for downloading some shitty mp3). This is terrorism at its finest. Im know horrible things happen in war and it brings out the worst in human beings but this ruling makes it look like the US goverment supports these atrocities. Im sorry for this poor op but I havent seen a thread yet. I feel that this needs to be discussed and honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters.
A US marine who admitted charges linked to the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 should face no time in detention, a judge has recommended.
The decision by the judge at Camp Pendleton, California, must be approved by the commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Sgt Frank Wuterich faced a maximum of three months after admitting dereliction of duty in a plea deal.
He was one of eight marines charged over the killings at Haditha.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.
Military judge Lt Col David Jones said his hands had been tied by the terms of the plea agreement. However, he said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private.
The judge said he had decided not to dock the marine's pay because Wuterich is divorced with sole custody of his three young children.
Prosecutors had asked that Wuterich receive the maximum sentence of three months confinement, reduction in rank and forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay.
Soldiers should be MORE accountable for lives they take, not less. Same goes for any job where someone is given a gun. With great power comes great responsibility. So stupid.
I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US. These men should all be in jail for life and now they walk freely (you probably get more than 3months for downloading some shitty mp3). This is terrorism at its finest. Im know horrible things happen in war and it brings out the worst in human beings but this ruling makes it look like the US goverment supports these atrocities. Im sorry for this poor op but I havent seen a thread yet. I feel that this needs to be discussed and honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters.
The different sentence is not the result of the US placing a lower value on Iraqi lives. The lower sentence is because they are soldiers and thus they are not treated exactly the same as civilians.
I agree that a heavier sentence would be in order but to suggest that racism has anything to do with it is just ridiculous.
People were killed, why isn't that bad enough? Why do you need to make it so much worse by conjuring up false reasons? Are dead people not enough anymore?
Just deal with the facts. Argue about the facts. There is no need to pretend that racism had anything to do with this.
Why would you think Americans would feel any differently about this? The vast majority of Americans were outraged by this, and as the article you linked points out, it was a big factor in why we ended up pulling out.
The only people I've heard that were okay with what happened considered any Iraqi an enemy combatant, which is idiotic, and I somehow doubt you're gonna hear much of that around here, considering how educated most people on this forum are.
The ruling is quite recently thats why. If the majority of all american was outraged by this why does only 1 of them get up to 3 months and the rest walks free? The maximum sentence for abu Ghuraib was 10 years!
On January 24 2012 07:43 corpuscle wrote: Why would you think Americans would feel any differently about this? The vast majority of Americans were outraged by this, and as the article you linked points out, it was a big factor in why we ended up pulling out.
The only people I've heard that were okay with what happened considered any Iraqi an enemy combatant, which is idiotic, and I somehow doubt you're gonna hear much of that around here, considering how educated most people on this forum are.
The sticking point that's referred to is the non-immunity, not the incident.
I was honestly pretty shocked at the brevity of the sentence, and personally believe anyone who fired at civilians during this debacle should get at least a few years. More, obviously if the people they fired at were severely injured or killed. The problem is in war it is nearly impossible to determine which soldiers fired, and harder still to determine which shots ended up killing or wounding individuals. Regardless, three months is, in my opinion, far too brief.
Why? Its right to punish them in so many ways, the most is that what they did was fucking crazy and they KILLED a bunch of people.....everyone else had charges dropped and 1 acquittal? WTF way to ignore justice AND make the US military look like a joke in one swoop.
As a soldier I can gun down unarmed civilians as long as I think that's a great idea...? Why did the other soldiers follow orders from a man who had clearly gone apeshit? The fuck?
The "most notorious case against US troops from the Iraq war" ends with basically 0 repercussions. This is appalling.
Disgusting ruling. Civilians were killed for no reason and most of the perpetrators get sent free and one serves a sentence less then I would get for stealing a car.
I don't get that I mean you get more time if you hit someone in your car and drive away, even if they lived. Really bad sentencing I don't understand what the court was thinking... I know that the taliban use whatever disgueses they can in order to kill US soldiers but I don't think that there was enough evidence to shoot all those people.
24 lives = 3 months in jail. 3,75 days per life taken. We are talking about men, women, children, all unarmed.
Why the hell is the life of 24 an Iraqis worth less than an illegal mp3 download? Why the hell do you put up with this obviously non-humanitarian justice system??
Edit: I just read this in the spoiler tag, about one of the houses assaulted. This is just horrifying. Monstrous. How can this so called "human" walk after 3 months??
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.
On January 24 2012 07:43 Xivsa wrote: As Donald Rumsfeld eloquently put it, "Stuff happens."
Great, I'll use it the next time I commit a serious crime.
Depends on the context, as long as you're serving in a winning side of a war you could get away with alot of shit.
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.
American justice system =/= military courts. Civilian and military courts are extremely far apart in terms of well.. alot.
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.
Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
On January 24 2012 08:33 forgottendreams wrote: American justice system =/= military courts. Civilian and military courts are extremely far apart in terms of well.. alot.
This is a good point. I don't have any familiarity with how Article 23 hearings work or exactly what the standards for evidence or proof are.
On January 24 2012 08:26 Notfragile wrote: Pathetic. DISGUSTING. Is this shit justice??
24 lives = 3 months in jail. 3,75 days per life taken. We are talking about men, women, children, all unarmed.
Why the hell is the life of 24 an Iraqis worth less than an illegal mp3 download? Why the hell do you put up with this obviously non-humanitarian justice system??
Edit: I just read this in the spoiler tag, about one of the houses assaulted. This is just horrifying. Monstrous. How can this so called "human" walk after 3 months??
House #2—8 killed: Shot at close range and attacked with grenades
Younis Salim Khafif, 43—husband of Aida Yasin Ahmed, father. Aida Yasin Ahmed, 41—wife of Younis Salim Khafif, killed trying to shield her youngest daughter Aisha. Muhammad Younis Salim, 8—son. Noor Younis Salim, 14—daughter. Sabaa Younis Salim, 10—daughter. Zainab Younis Salim, 5—daughter. Aisha Younis Salim, 3—daughter. A 1-year-old girl staying with the family.
And the fucked up thing about me reading up about this on Wikipedia, its sad and wrong. 4 brothers killed in a house together, and practically 2 entire families massacred in their homes. This is why Iraq hates us so much, because we don't give a fuck about their country or citizens, just their oil.... -__-
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.
Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
Proving that they died doesn't prove everything else.
On January 24 2012 08:23 DannyJ wrote: Lol OP " honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters." What do you want them to say, 3 months is too long?
On January 24 2012 08:34 Notfragile wrote: Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
I read all of those references before I posted and no they aren't enough. Again, NO Iraqis testified at the trial. Cell-phone interviews aside, the court never heard from any of those people. Certainly someone massacred those people, but can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was these Marines? Having not seen the actual evidence, I can't say.
Just because we are both pretty sure that they did this, doesn't mean that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT I digress because as this was already pointed out, this investigation was carried out as part of an Article 32 hearing and I don't know what the rules are there.
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.
so as long i dont leave evidence behind i can make war crimes just like the nazis in WW2 and get away with it
On January 24 2012 08:23 DannyJ wrote: Lol OP " honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters." What do you want them to say, 3 months is too long?
On January 24 2012 08:41 Anytus wrote: I read all of those references before I posted and no they aren't enough. Again, NO Iraqis testified at the trial. Cell-phone interviews aside, the court never heard from any of those people. Certainly someone massacred those people, but can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was these Marines? Having not seen the actual evidence, I can't say.
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.
Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
Proving that they died doesn't prove everything else.
"the killings were methodical and without resistance" "Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack"
Read. Unarmed civilians (and not even teenager children) + no weapons found + no insurgents hiding in the houses = blind, indiscriminate slaughter.
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.
What the fuck? You can get more time for possession of marijuana than what that guy got. That is seriously fucked up, this guy put it perfectly:
On January 24 2012 07:41 Mohdoo wrote: Soldiers should be MORE accountable for lives they take, not less. Same goes for any job where someone is given a gun. With great power comes great responsibility. So stupid.
Agreed. The justice system in the US is getting more and more ridiculous.
On January 24 2012 08:34 Notfragile wrote: Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
I read all of those references before I posted and no they aren't enough. Again, NO Iraqis testified at the trial. Cell-phone interviews aside, the court never heard from any of those people. Certainly someone massacred those people, but can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was these Marines? Having not seen the actual evidence, I can't say.
Just because we are both pretty sure that they did this, doesn't mean that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT I digress because as this was already pointed out, this investigation was carried out as part of an Article 32 hearing and I don't know what the rules are there.
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.
On January 24 2012 08:44 Notfragile wrote: "the killings were methodical and without resistance" "Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack"
Read. Unarmed civilians (and not even teenager children) + no weapons found + no insurgents hiding in the houses = blind, indiscriminate slaughter.
Yes a lot of unarmed civilians were massacred. No one disputes that. What evidence proves that it was this group of Marines? Remember, no eye witnesses testified at the trial, other than the marines themselves. No forensics was done on the crime scene to match the weapons to those of the marines on trial.
Just because you know they did it and I know they did it doesn't mean you can prove it in a court of law.
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.
Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
Proving that they died doesn't prove everything else.
"the killings were methodical and without resistance" "Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack"
Read. Unarmed civilians (and not even teenager children) + no weapons found + no insurgents hiding in the houses = blind, indiscriminate slaughter.
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.
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.
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
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 08:54 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 08:54 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 08:28 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.
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.
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 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 08:42 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 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 08:54 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?
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.
let's make it clear that I have said/implied that the Marines in question were still responsible for their actions and deserve heavier punishments. I just wanted to give some context to people who think that this is just a simple "omg so bad usa is joke!!"
But both counter-examples given are not very comparable to Marine squad's situation. They were given the order to clear out the houses, and did so in the worst possible way by Wuderich issuing bad orders and ignoring the rules of engagement, because they were still fresh off the traumatizing experience of an explosive wrecking their transport vehicle and the death of a marine comrade. No doubt their adrenaline-fueled minds were far from lucid. Both counter-examples cited would require a greater degree of foresight and planning, which would be ample time to think things clearly.
In all three cases, the biggest fault lies with the higher ups who decided to start the whole mess in the first place :\
Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
Honestly reading this thread makes me doubt quite a few things on this planet.
Yes it was a massacre, and yes the military courts covered it up. If you think you can deny that i must ask you how naive you are. They could have matched every single bullet to a specific rifle if they wanted to. Instead they swept it under the rug and let enough time pass that such evidence was not available.
Regarding the: "prove that those marines killed them" it is VERY easy to prove that a specific weapon killed someone, and in the context of soldiers it is basically a done deal.
The court and the military superiors did not want those men convicted it is as simple as that.
On January 24 2012 09:31 ArvickHero wrote: But both counter-examples given are not very comparable to Marine squad's situation. They were given the order to clear out the houses, and did so in the worst possible way by Wuderich issuing bad orders and ignoring the rules of engagement, because they were still fresh off the traumatizing experience of an explosive wrecking their transport vehicle and the death of a marine comrade. No doubt their adrenaline-fueled minds were far from lucid. Both counter-examples cited would require a greater degree of foresight and planning, which would be ample time to think things clearly.
In all three cases, the biggest fault lies with the higher ups who decided to start the whole mess in the first place :\
This is your previous post:
On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote: 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.
Now, we could sit and argue about just how horrible an act must be to interfere with someone's decision making for what amount of time. For example, spending every waking moment of your life in fear for both you and your family might cause more illucidity for longer time than simply living every waking moment of your life in fear. If you lose your family to "collateral damage" on top of that, illucidity might skyrocket. If you lose everything you hold dear in life and live in fear since childhood, you might always be illucid.
But that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that traumatic environments cause people to go crazy. And though we can argue about the specifics of just how crazy people get and just what it takes them to get crazy and just how long they stay crazy, it's very clear that, for at least some people in the regions we're so dearly invested in, there's enough trauma to cause them to go crazy and commit atrocities against us in a manner that's scarcely seen outside of the most wartorn regions of Africa.
And when* they do, will you hold them to the same standard you hold our troops?
*I don't think this is a question of "if". If you do think this is a question of "if", not "when", we have fundamental disagreements on Iraq that probably cannot be resolved.
This is silliness. These troops are placed in a chaotic, unforgiving conditions; how is everyone so surprised by their chaotic and unforgivable behaviour? Here we are scapegoating the Pawns because we cannot go after the King.
This is not to say the marines are not guilty. They are so very guilty for their individual behaviour and they will struggle with this guilt for their entire lives. But I suspect we are trying to feel good about ourselves when majority of us supported the war in Iraq. This is one of the side effects of war. It is never pretty. I won't argue on the necessity. But everyone can agree that it is an extremely ugly business and it better damn be worth it.
So here it is: Was it worth it? Did we avenge the Twin Tower victims? Do we even remember them anymore?
All I ask here is to take one minute. Just one minute to mourn the Twin Tower victims and the Haditha victims. Cool our heads with solemn reflection before we jump into a hot-headed debate.
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.
This post sort of reminds me of those 'alternate reality' RPs that kind of are based on real-life but the details are really different from the reality.
Just a few days ago, I read a report on how radio broadcasters are being detained for saying things other than essentially worshipping the govt. Big opponent politicians are arrested for being... opposing. Just earlier this month year, Al-Maliki arrested the biggest opposing politician, Al-Hashemi, for being nothing actually proven (there were some bogus charges placed on him to make the arrest) more than being a political threat to his regime. And there's been tons of stories like this even in US media, nevermind in the Iraqi people's own local knowledge of what goes on in their country. There's tons of protests and riots which are just crushed by protesters being shot and killed by security forces, as people are fed up with what's becoming another Hussein, except isn't anywhere near as fervent about improving the country. Just yesterday I read an article about Human Rights Watch condemning the country for crushing free speech, which is what it is in fact doing. Nope, they have very little in ways of freedom of speech and press, not much better compared than before if anything in the most optimistic case. Interestingly, the only monumental political shift is the ruling party is a former Islamic terror group that's somewhat tamed in this regard nowadays rather than a secular group that stamped out Islamic radicalism. No other monumental shift otherwise.
Reading the rest of your post was a bit funny because it is really full of wrong. Iraq was actually a strongly developing country before the sanctions on everything. Think about it. The sanctions dropped GDP some 70+% over a 12 year period. Infrastructure, development, social and educational systems, middle-class, and other things that constitute a developing country that's actually developing went ba bye. You also realize that their HDI was #50 back in 1990, and this is considering it came right after a long war against a rogue Islamist state and leader, and this is considering the fact that even then, the Iraqi HDI was really brought down by the fact it had a formally recognized dictatorship. By 2000, the sanctioning brought it down to about #120. Right now, it's at #132. Look at the top 50 today. It's not bad, and this is assuming Iraq wouldn't have continued to progress. Speaking about corruption, corruption in Iraq today is easily one of the worst in the world and it's so infamous that it often making news, while before it wasn't anything significant in regards to the average developing country.
It's a real shithole, and near where I live there's a big community of Iraqi Christians, mostly from Baghdad. It's always interesting to hear from the people who immigrated (of whom more know English than you would think) in the 70s-80s and they say how things were fine and stuff until the iran-iraq war when they left, and then the ones from the 90s-2000s tell stories like what I hear about Uganda and left because of impoverishment, fear, persecution, no work, relatives dying, etc. A couple I even had to ask for confirmation that they were speaking about Iraq, because it was pretty bad. I've given a fair amount of attention to these matters as a sort of amends since I snapped out of being a terribly indoctrinated hater of Arabs and Muslims. I will say though that media and propaganda are really powerful things.
Also, let's not forget the influence of the US on the UN, particularly in the period after the USSR's collapse. It was practically hegemonic. It was hardly difficult to get the UN's approval for doing things in the 90s. With Russia back in the seat and a rising China, it hasn't been so simple.
The US did get a ton out of it. They've made some engineering and oil companies extremely wealthy and they replaced an independent state with a seemingly submissive regime in a region of extremely high strategic value. Don't underestimate that. That's a huge gain. The only thing they couldn't get was their permanent bases because the people and govt. there would not allow it at all, and for obvious reasons. Good they still have their patriotic spirit and pride. The same can't be said about many of those Arabs (or Europeans).
In any case, idealism and wholesale exaggeration of things is not really needed rofl. Anyone with any common sense can see that the country is in a retardedly fucked up and decadent state, and it will take quite some time to get back to getting back where it was.
Maybe you say these things because you can see 25 years into the future and its GDP's been growing like 15% a year or something, with additional perks like the Shi'a fanatics (originally influenced by Khomeini and continued to be influenced by Iran) and the Kurdish nationalists finally becoming civilized and actually contribute to the country they live in rather than to Iran or to the imaginary state of Kurdistan. Otherwise, I have no idea why you say things almost completely contrary to the reality.
Anyways, to put things in perspective, it's basically on par with countries like Morocco or India. And this is coming from people who exaggerate the positivity of their old country, if anything. (For example, you can't imagine how many Indian-descended people at my university have told me what an great and amazing place India is to live).
I don't think you should judge him until you have been to war yourself and watched your friend get blown up by a bomb. I don't think he should be excused of the crime, but shit happens.
On January 24 2012 09:31 ArvickHero wrote: But both counter-examples given are not very comparable to Marine squad's situation. They were given the order to clear out the houses, and did so in the worst possible way by Wuderich issuing bad orders and ignoring the rules of engagement, because they were still fresh off the traumatizing experience of an explosive wrecking their transport vehicle and the death of a marine comrade. No doubt their adrenaline-fueled minds were far from lucid. Both counter-examples cited would require a greater degree of foresight and planning, which would be ample time to think things clearly.
In all three cases, the biggest fault lies with the higher ups who decided to start the whole mess in the first place :\
On January 24 2012 08:54 ArvickHero wrote: 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.
Now, we could sit and argue about just how horrible an act must be to interfere with someone's decision making for what amount of time. For example, spending every waking moment of your life in fear for both you and your family might cause more illucidity for longer time than simply living every waking moment of your life in fear. If you lose your family to "collateral damage" on top of that, illucidity might skyrocket. If you lose everything you hold dear in life and live in fear since childhood, you might always be illucid.
But that's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that traumatic environments cause people to go crazy. And though we can argue about the specifics of just how crazy people get and just what it takes them to get crazy and just how long they stay crazy, it's very clear that, for at least some people in the regions we're so dearly invested in, there's enough trauma to cause them to go crazy and commit atrocities against us in a manner that's scarcely seen outside of the most wartorn regions of Africa.
And when* they do, will you hold them to the same standard you hold our troops?
*I don't think this is a question of "if". If you do think this is a question of "if", not "when", we have fundamental disagreements on Iraq that probably cannot be resolved.
Same standard as in, that they are still held responsible for their actions, but there are also those in power that are to blame for creating such a terrible situation in the first place? Yea, I think my standard is the same for both.
My problem was that people were over-simplifying the problem, so I wanted to chime in some context because things are never as black-and-white as some would make it out to be.
On January 24 2012 10:40 ArvickHero wrote: Same standard as in, that they are still held responsible for their actions, but there are also those in power that are to blame for creating such a terrible situation in the first place? Yea, I think my standard is the same for both.
On January 24 2012 10:02 Tula wrote: Honestly reading this thread makes me doubt quite a few things on this planet.
Yes it was a massacre, and yes the military courts covered it up. If you think you can deny that i must ask you how naive you are. They could have matched every single bullet to a specific rifle if they wanted to. Instead they swept it under the rug and let enough time pass that such evidence was not available.
Regarding the: "prove that those marines killed them" it is VERY easy to prove that a specific weapon killed someone, and in the context of soldiers it is basically a done deal.
The court and the military superiors did not want those men convicted it is as simple as that.
It's not "prove that those marines killed them". That was already proven and admitted.
On January 24 2012 07:41 Mohdoo wrote: Soldiers should be MORE accountable for lives they take, not less. Same goes for any job where someone is given a gun. With great power comes great responsibility. So stupid.
More accountable than who, exactly?
Look, I'm not going to try to justify this crime. Somebody ought to pay a price for what happened as it was a clear step outside the bounds of what's acceptable. Based on what I've read, there could be no room for ambiguity except perhaps in a very paranoid mind -- one that should not be sent to the battlefield to begin with.
But the fact of the matter is this: "When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker. When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he [believes he] needs to do. And if the implications of that bothers you, the time to do something about it is before you decide to send him out." (David Drake, Mil-SF author.)
Sending a soldier out on the battlefield and then telling him his life is worth less than a civilian in a designated combat zone is a wholly unreasonable expectation -- amoral and unrealistic. Understand, this is not a justification for a soldier to slaughter the innocent without care or to use civilians as a human shield, or anything of that nature; it is a reflection of the reality that a solider has the very same right to live as anybody else and that incidents of collateral damage will happen and that he cannot be held accountable unless there is a clear and unambiguous abuse of power.
This case would definitely appear to be -- based on our perception via media reports (which, unfortunately, are notorious for being less factual than they should be) -- a clear abuse of power. Based on what we know, this sentence is inadequate. I do not see why nobody was given a real sentence. I do not see any reason why any of the guilty parties should still be members of our military, yet they are.
Since none of you are familiar with Military punishment. That sergeant is the equivalent of a convicted felon for the rest of his life. He'll be bagging groceries until he's 80. That's more of a punishment than life in prison could ever be.
On January 24 2012 11:42 Ympulse wrote: Since none of you are familiar with Military punishment. That sergeant is the equivalent of a convicted felon for the rest of his life. He'll be bagging groceries until he's 80. That's more of a punishment than life in prison could ever be.
Totally right. Going on a rampage murdering families should only result in you losing the chance for a decent wage after leaving the army, not any kind of incarceration. Of course.
On January 24 2012 11:42 Ympulse wrote: Since none of you are familiar with Military punishment. That sergeant is the equivalent of a convicted felon for the rest of his life. He'll be bagging groceries until he's 80. That's more of a punishment than life in prison could ever be.
i seriously wonder if those murdered would have lead a had better life in iraq if they had not been killed, compared to the sergeant's life as a grocer in the united states.
I'm studying to become lawyer one day but when I see shit like this I wonder to myself where the justice is in the world... Is there any left? What's the point...
[B] Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US.
No offense. But you are immature to make this ignorant assumption/accusation. Justice is elusive in many countries not just the U.S. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a child. France was up in arms to defend him and was quick to blame American politics behind the movement to get him accountable. France REFUSES to extradite him back to the U.S to face his crime.
France protects child rapist. Children lives and innocent mean nothing to the French people.
It's sort of incredible that he wasn't at the very least discharged. From what I understand... this man could be deployed again and kill innocents again? Prison/rehabilitation for his crimes plus discharge at the very least.
a lot of marines are psychotic. most people who are on the frontlines go into war passable as a sane individual, but once they get back they are usually so messed up.
[B] Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US.
No offense. But you are immature to make this ignorant assumption/accusation. Justice is elusive in many countries not just the U.S. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a child. France was up in arms to defend him and was quick to blame American politics behind the movement to get him accountable. France REFUSES to extradite him back to the U.S to face his crime.
France protects child rapist. Children lives and innocent mean nothing to the French people.
Problem, logic?
How many Americans even think about the hundreds of thousands (millions, by some studies) of dead Iraqis when they talk about the war?
Both sides have to be accountable for the same things. That's the only way to put a shred of honor back into war.
On January 24 2012 11:42 Ympulse wrote: Since none of you are familiar with Military punishment. That sergeant is the equivalent of a convicted felon for the rest of his life. He'll be bagging groceries until he's 80. That's more of a punishment than life in prison could ever be.
i seriously wonder if those murdered would have lead a had better life in iraq if they had not been killed, compared to the sergeant's life as a grocer in the united states.
cruel world.
Bleed your heart out some more. Vengeance for a third party is masked sadism. The man is going to pay the rest of his life for ending someone else's unjustly. Let the man be, and instead of attacking him, analyze and figure out how to make it not happen in the future.
[B] Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US.
No offense. But you are immature to make this ignorant assumption/accusation. Justice is elusive in many countries not just the U.S. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a child. France was up in arms to defend him and was quick to blame American politics behind the movement to get him accountable. France REFUSES to extradite him back to the U.S to face his crime.
France protects child rapist. Children lives and innocent mean nothing to the French people.
Problem, logic?
How many Americans even think about the hundreds of thousands (millions, by some studies) of dead Iraqis when they talk about the war?
Both sides have to be accountable for the same things. That's the only way to put a shred of honor back into war.
On January 24 2012 11:42 Ympulse wrote: Since none of you are familiar with Military punishment. That sergeant is the equivalent of a convicted felon for the rest of his life. He'll be bagging groceries until he's 80. That's more of a punishment than life in prison could ever be.
i seriously wonder if those murdered would have lead a had better life in iraq if they had not been killed, compared to the sergeant's life as a grocer in the united states.
cruel world.
Bleed your heart out some more. Vengeance for a third party is masked sadism. The man is going to pay the rest of his life for ending someone else's unjustly. Let the man be, and instead of attacking him, analyze and figure out how to make it not happen in the future.
Or he is laughing his ass off that he got away with 3 months in prison for multiple murders.
And noone is talking about vengeance, people are talking about justice. You should not be able to get away so easy after murdering people, just because they are from a different country which does not have the power to enforce law in your country. As a civilized nation, you have the moral duty to not protect your citizens from rightful prosecution just because they are your citizens.
Seriously... You don't want to be seen "good" by the rest of the world, do you? Your soldiers go on a fucking killing spree/rampage and get like nothign for it?
WTF? This is coming from the same country that knows the death penalty?... Staggering...
Holy shit his name is so ironic. Wüterich is a german word for someone who easily falls into a fury or is raving mad. A synonyme could be berserker....
Over a hundred thousand Iraq civilians were killed during the occupation.
What's one more village? It seems absurd to get cold feet now, at the end of a decade of patriotic slaughter of ragheads.
Vast numbers of civilian deaths are guaranteed in any campaign that takes place in urban areas. This was already considered acceptable by the US government before a boot hit the ground. It's a bit late for crocodile tears now.
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.
The war on Iraq is anything but a sucess. It irks me to see people claim so many things about the Iraqi people that I doubt they have knowledge about. I'd like to know where you got the notion that the people of Iraq enjoy more freedoms now than the before the war.
It is true that many Iraqi people supported the toppling of the Saddam regime, but not at the cost it came with. Saddam was truly a tyrant, but in his days Iraq was much more "stable" (outside of the wars of course). For example, crime was low and the power was reliable. Some people seemed to be more content in the Saddam regime than during the American occupation (direct translation from what Iraqis call it). Many people have fled the country after 2003, and I barely have any family left in Iraqi anymore. While my Grandmother/Grandmother and plenty of cousins/aunts/uncles seemed to endure the Saddam regime, they just couldn't stand the unreliability of post-war Iraq.
You are right about one thing though, and that is that the future dosn't look to bleak for Iraq. The economy is rising in certain areas, such as Basra (where most of the oil is mined) and Arbeel (the northern Kurdish city which is one of the safest in Iraq. Fun Fact: A Burgerfuel was just opened there a few months ago, Kiwis will know what im talking about =).), but the rest of the country is still in turmoil. There are still power outages that occur daily, and bombings are far to frequent. Many of the Iraqi people who fled the country see no point in going back. Was it worth all the lives lost? All the people displaced?
I know I don't post on TL much, as a mainly lurk around and don't really think that I can contribute to any of the amazing discussions you guys have. But this is one of the few issues I can shed some light on, so I hope people just don't look at my low post count and ignore the points I make in fear of "trolling".
On January 24 2012 19:32 NSGrendel wrote: Over a hundred thousand Iraq civilians were killed during the occupation.
What's one more village? It seems absurd to get cold feet now, at the end of a decade of patriotic slaughter of ragheads.
Vast numbers of civilian deaths are guaranteed in any campaign that takes place in urban areas. This was already considered acceptable by the US government before a boot hit the ground. It's a bit late for crocodile tears now.
What the hell are you saying ? oh well we killed thousands already we might aswell kill those guys over there, nobody will notice ?? And raghead ? seriously ?
Let's remember that Frank Wuterich was about 24 years old when he committed the act. It's not an excuse, but when these 'kids' are under constant stress in a war zone, they tend to act a bit crazy. It's a mitigating factor that the defense team probably used to great effect in their defense tactics. At least they went through the proper legal procedures in this case.
They have no way to prove beyond doubt that he was one of the men who actually shot and killed innocent civilians. That's why he is only being charged on manslaughter and that's why they arent pushing for murder. If they tried to get him for murder, it's likely that they wouldnt have enough evidence and he would walk free entirely. It's a legal system, and it is in fact far from "terrorism"..... I'm not saying its fully justified but that's how these things work. Im sure Germany has had its fair share of crazy shit like this happen before as well.
You might be outraged by the decision OP, but dont hate America just because we're America. Terrorism is a pretty ridiculous accusation.
On January 24 2012 19:39 Bessey wrote:The war on Iraq is anything but a sucess. It irks me to see people claim so many things about the Iraqi people that I doubt they have knowledge about. I'd like to know where you got the notion that the people of Iraq enjoy more freedoms now than the before the war.
There is free press in Iraq and freedom of speech. Neither existed under Saddam. The people of Iraq want the US to get out? They can say that just as easily. Their last democratic elections were widely considered a succes.
Doesn't matter what side of the argument you fall on. You can't deny Iraqi's are more free now then under Saddam.
It is true that many Iraqi people supported the toppling of the Saddam regime, but not at the cost it came with. Saddam was truly a tyrant, but in his days Iraq was much more "stable" (outside of the wars of course). For example, crime was low and the power was reliable. Some people seemed to be more content in the Saddam regime than during the American occupation (direct translation from what Iraqis call it). Many people have fled the country after 2003, and I barely have any family left in Iraqi anymore. While my Grandmother/Grandmother and plenty of cousins/aunts/uncles seemed to endure the Saddam regime, they just couldn't stand the unreliability of post-war Iraq.
I am sure that East-Germany was stable under the Stasi aswell. Doesn't mean it was a good system.
People staying in Iraq was somewhat influenced by the fact that your entire family would get thrown in jail if your moving was considered political in any way.
They might have wanted to run for a long time but simply couldn't under Saddam. People aren't staying in North-Korea because it's paradise on earth, sometimes you simply can't leave due to the government.
You are right about one thing though, and that is that the future dosn't look to bleak for Iraq. The economy is rising in certain areas, such as Basra (where most of the oil is mined) and Arbeel (the northern Kurdish city which is one of the safest in Iraq. Fun Fact: A Burgerfuel was just opened there a few months ago, Kiwis will know what im talking about =).), but the rest of the country is still in turmoil. There are still power outages that occur daily, and bombings are far to frequent. Many of the Iraqi people who fled the country see no point in going back. Was it worth all the lives lost? All the people displaced?
But the USA can't stop the bombings. Only the Iraqi people can stop those bombings.
I think it was worth it. Had the USA not done what it did then Saddam would still be in power today. Still running his criminal totalitarian regime.
Killing off half the party, forcing family members to cheer for the murder of their own. It's not always about practical things. Some times you just have to say that you cannot tolerate a regime that is so morally bankrupt. He even had a man chopped up and send the body parts to his wife.
Iraq's future is a good one at the moment. If Saddam was still alive or one of his sons had taken over? The place would still be a hellhole.
I know I don't post on TL much, as a mainly lurk around and don't really think that I can contribute to any of the amazing discussions you guys have. But this is one of the few issues I can shed some light on, so I hope people just don't look at my low post count and ignore the points I make in fear of "trolling".
A decent post is a decent post. Postcount doesn't say much.
I'm frankly a bit surprised at the amount of shock expressed in this post.
Yes, it's horrific. Yes, it's unacceptable. Will it happen again? Probably.
War is not a pretty thing. Take kids, sometimes poor, angry youth. Give them guns, power and harsh training. Create a situation of intense, continuous anxiety and paranoia. Then kill off some of their friends as they watch.
Events do not look pretty in war. Soldiers should not be excused, but training and preparation should be improved to prevent these situations. Or better, stay the fuck out of countries that do not want nor need intervention.
Until then, atrocities will occur. Soldiers will get light punishments.
You deliver several arguments that they should in fact have been punished and then basically say, but it's ok because "Soldiers will geht light punishments".
And you expect people to say: "Oh, i guess massmurder is ok when it's commited by angry Soldiers:".
On January 24 2012 19:54 Velr wrote: Then how is the correct word for this act if not terrorism or massmurder? They killed civilians out of rage/hate...
Just imagine this would happen the other way round... I'm sure you wouldn't call them Terrorists... ... ... -.-
The key difference here is that the US military followed the proper legal process of prosecuting the offender, and he is not being portrayed as a hero for sure. It's a despicable act but you have to commend the US military for taking the responsibility and handling the matter through the appropriate channel.
On the other hand, I think we all know how terrorists are being worshiped as 'martyrs' back in their home country/province.
On January 24 2012 19:39 Bessey wrote:The war on Iraq is anything but a sucess. It irks me to see people claim so many things about the Iraqi people that I doubt they have knowledge about. I'd like to know where you got the notion that the people of Iraq enjoy more freedoms now than the before the war.
There is free press in Iraq and freedom of speech. Neither existed under Saddam. The people of Iraq want the US to get out? They can say that just as easily. Their last democratic elections were widely considered a succes.
Doesn't matter what side of the argument you fall on. You can't deny Iraqi's are more free now then under Saddam.
It is true that many Iraqi people supported the toppling of the Saddam regime, but not at the cost it came with. Saddam was truly a tyrant, but in his days Iraq was much more "stable" (outside of the wars of course). For example, crime was low and the power was reliable. Some people seemed to be more content in the Saddam regime than during the American occupation (direct translation from what Iraqis call it). Many people have fled the country after 2003, and I barely have any family left in Iraqi anymore. While my Grandmother/Grandmother and plenty of cousins/aunts/uncles seemed to endure the Saddam regime, they just couldn't stand the unreliability of post-war Iraq.
I am sure that East-Germany was stable under the Stasi aswell. Doesn't mean it was a good system.
People staying in Iraq was somewhat influenced by the fact that your entire family would get thrown in jail if your moving was considered political in any way.
They might have wanted to run for a long time but simply couldn't under Saddam. People aren't staying in North-Korea because it's paradise on earth, sometimes you simply can't leave due to the government.
You are right about one thing though, and that is that the future dosn't look to bleak for Iraq. The economy is rising in certain areas, such as Basra (where most of the oil is mined) and Arbeel (the northern Kurdish city which is one of the safest in Iraq. Fun Fact: A Burgerfuel was just opened there a few months ago, Kiwis will know what im talking about =).), but the rest of the country is still in turmoil. There are still power outages that occur daily, and bombings are far to frequent. Many of the Iraqi people who fled the country see no point in going back. Was it worth all the lives lost? All the people displaced?
But the USA can't stop the bombings. Only the Iraqi people can stop those bombings.
I think it was worth it. Had the USA not done what it did then Saddam would still be in power today. Still running his criminal totalitarian regime.
Killing off half the party, forcing family members to cheer for the murder of their own. It's not always about practical things. Some times you just have to say that you cannot tolerate a regime that is so morally bankrupt. He even had a man chopped up and send the body parts to his wife.
Iraq's future is a good one at the moment. If Saddam was still alive or one of his sons had taken over? The place would still be a hellhole.
I know I don't post on TL much, as a mainly lurk around and don't really think that I can contribute to any of the amazing discussions you guys have. But this is one of the few issues I can shed some light on, so I hope people just don't look at my low post count and ignore the points I make in fear of "trolling".
A decent post is a decent post. Postcount doesn't say much.
Freedom is not a good measure of anything by itself really. But anyway their free press and freedom of speech is laughable by any western standard, in some areas they have even lesser freedom of speech than before. Saying they are better now than under Saddam's regime is true only so-so if at all. And the cost of achieving so, compared to the cost of overthrowing East-German regime, was quite possibly far from worth it considering hundreds of thousands that had to die and countless others that had to suffer. As for their new freedoms : torture and corruption not unlike in Saddam's days
You have to look at it from a civilian perspective, while I'm not defending I'm explaining it. Pretend your sister gets raped by 5 guys and 2 of them justwatch, no reasonable man would not want to kill or harm all five of those guys even the ones who watched, am I wrong? I would get pretty wicked. In Iraq it is extremely corrupt. It should not be used as a reason why we didn't stay, the Iraqi government does a better job of killing citizens than Americans. Also this is in no way related to any ghraibyou should see the real pics and not some bs CNN pics.
On January 24 2012 19:54 Velr wrote: Then how is the correct word for this act if not terrorism or massmurder? They killed civilians out of rage/hate...
Just imagine this would happen the other way round... I'm sure you wouldn't call them Terrorists... ... ... -.-
The key difference here is that the US military followed the proper legal process of prosecuting the offender, and he is not being portrayed as a hero for sure. It's a despicable act but you have to commend the US military for taking the responsibility and handling the matter through the appropriate channel.
On the other hand, I think we all know how terrorists are being worshiped as 'martyrs' back in their home country/province.
And you wonder why ? Maybe when murderers of innocents get slap on the wrist in US, terrorists who kill US innocents are viewed as just performing due justice. Is it fucked up, yes, but it is far from surprising or unexpected reaction to injustice. US might try to think what message are they sending to the world by not punishing murderer's of innocent foreigners and how it might just incite even more hatred and violence against them. And frankly at this point rightfully so.
Maybe it's because soldiers are suffering psychological trauma, so they cannot be held truly responsible for their acts? But still, why not at least discharge him?
I believe this sets a very bad precedent, even in WWII sometimes commanders chose to punish people who fired at innocent civilians (i know of a few stories that happened in Romania).
On January 24 2012 07:36 Yuljan wrote: I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US.
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.
Aaaaaaaand read the post above you.
I guess concrete forensic evidence were needed in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a whole family was decimated. What, remnants of grenades and army bullets inside children who were in their own house aren't enough now?
"Video shot by the co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, Taher Thabet, which instigated Tim McGirk's original Time magazine article, and cellphone photos reportedly taken by one of the Marines[29] the day after the killings have been put forth as evidence that the killings were methodical and without resistance.[2][30] In particular, the video shot by Thabet shows the bodies of the children and women with gunshot wounds, bullet holes in the interior walls of the house, and bloodstains on the floor. Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack." (source: wikipedia, go check their own references if you still doubt)
Damn me, I seem to jump to conclusions really fast
Proving that they died doesn't prove everything else.
"the killings were methodical and without resistance" "Insufficient evidence has come to light to account for insurgents hiding in the houses that first came under attack"
Read. Unarmed civilians (and not even teenager children) + no weapons found + no insurgents hiding in the houses = blind, indiscriminate slaughter.
On January 24 2012 19:39 Bessey wrote:The war on Iraq is anything but a sucess. It irks me to see people claim so many things about the Iraqi people that I doubt they have knowledge about. I'd like to know where you got the notion that the people of Iraq enjoy more freedoms now than the before the war.
There is free press in Iraq and freedom of speech. Neither existed under Saddam. The people of Iraq want the US to get out? They can say that just as easily. Their last democratic elections were widely considered a succes.
Doesn't matter what side of the argument you fall on. You can't deny Iraqi's are more free now then under Saddam.
It is true that many Iraqi people supported the toppling of the Saddam regime, but not at the cost it came with. Saddam was truly a tyrant, but in his days Iraq was much more "stable" (outside of the wars of course). For example, crime was low and the power was reliable. Some people seemed to be more content in the Saddam regime than during the American occupation (direct translation from what Iraqis call it). Many people have fled the country after 2003, and I barely have any family left in Iraqi anymore. While my Grandmother/Grandmother and plenty of cousins/aunts/uncles seemed to endure the Saddam regime, they just couldn't stand the unreliability of post-war Iraq.
I am sure that East-Germany was stable under the Stasi aswell. Doesn't mean it was a good system.
People staying in Iraq was somewhat influenced by the fact that your entire family would get thrown in jail if your moving was considered political in any way.
They might have wanted to run for a long time but simply couldn't under Saddam. People aren't staying in North-Korea because it's paradise on earth, sometimes you simply can't leave due to the government.
You are right about one thing though, and that is that the future dosn't look to bleak for Iraq. The economy is rising in certain areas, such as Basra (where most of the oil is mined) and Arbeel (the northern Kurdish city which is one of the safest in Iraq. Fun Fact: A Burgerfuel was just opened there a few months ago, Kiwis will know what im talking about =).), but the rest of the country is still in turmoil. There are still power outages that occur daily, and bombings are far to frequent. Many of the Iraqi people who fled the country see no point in going back. Was it worth all the lives lost? All the people displaced?
But the USA can't stop the bombings. Only the Iraqi people can stop those bombings.
I think it was worth it. Had the USA not done what it did then Saddam would still be in power today. Still running his criminal totalitarian regime.
Killing off half the party, forcing family members to cheer for the murder of their own. It's not always about practical things. Some times you just have to say that you cannot tolerate a regime that is so morally bankrupt. He even had a man chopped up and send the body parts to his wife.
Iraq's future is a good one at the moment. If Saddam was still alive or one of his sons had taken over? The place would still be a hellhole.
I know I don't post on TL much, as a mainly lurk around and don't really think that I can contribute to any of the amazing discussions you guys have. But this is one of the few issues I can shed some light on, so I hope people just don't look at my low post count and ignore the points I make in fear of "trolling".
A decent post is a decent post. Postcount doesn't say much.
I'm going to puke. Imagine a war in netherlands, imagine it under occupation, imagine the thousands of dead, the ruined cities, the millions of broken dreams. Do you actually understand that WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME? WAR KILLS PEOPLE! Have you ever spoken with one of your elders who's been in war?
You're one of the most superficial posters on tl.net and i've seen that over time. You're always up in balls about free speech no matter the costs. Would you live in poverty and misery being happy you're free to say whatever you want? Maybe you're really passionate about it but i doubt it. I doubt you'd rather live your life in a weel chair (because of a bomb) and be able to speak freely than live healthy in a totalitarian regime.
Saddam's criminal regime wouldn't have managed to destroy as many lives (and by destroyed live i also think of parents who lose children, losing your loved one, losing your parent, brother, friends) as this war did not in a hundred years. The people of Iraqi did not revolt against Sadddam, there was no revolution, there was a war that was uncalled from the iraqi people. Were iraqis content of getting rid of saddam? Yes, they would've wanted to see him gone probably! But would they wanted to pay this price? No, definitely not at this costs!
And you're making a paralel about east germany? When was east germany attacked? Do you even know the history of it's "revolution" right? They used protests to get rid of their rulers, not bombs. They yelled "Gorbi, help us" when Gorbaciov had a meeting with east germany ruler (i forgot his name). They went out on the streets and said what they want! How can you make a paralel between the two?
If one of saddam's sons took over it would be hellhole right? What the hell is it now? A paradise? Being afraid of being blown up on the streets? Would you live there?
Edit: sorry for the off topic but i just had to...
I love how everyone just assumes that our Marines are guilty. Even though they were found not guilty of murder/manslaughter any of that. One is guilty of dereliction of duty. That was the only crime committed.
Let me clue you all you weirdos in; dead Iraqi's with bullet holes in them was commonplace in all of Iraq in '05. It could very well have been a local Al-Qaeda cell who shot them up for refusing to be suicide bombers. Who knows. Dead civilian Iraqi's does not mean that the nearest US forces shot them up.
If those who say those soldiers should have gotten much worst have never done any form of REAL military training then I am sorry but you are not qualified to debate on this matter. War is not a game, you never know when you could be ambushed when your not in safe zones. I only did the training for the Canadian reserve and when we did the simulator near the end of training it was fucking crazy. You're so tired it's hard to make good decisions since you have only slept 4 hours during the past 48 hours, the sound of artillery (even though they're fake) is crazy, you really feel where the impact comes from.
I'm sorry, but if I saw someone who was with me during training get blown up in pieces by a bomb when I'm super tired and exhausted as well as paranoid given the circumstance, I might, and you as well, act like that.
Since you wanted the American reaction, I would say that the most common reaction is not thinking about it. I would be surprised if 10% of us Americans even know that this massacre took place. It just isn't anything approaching headline news in this country.
Most Americans do know that atrocities were committed in Iraq in general, and we do feel bad about it. Those that opposed the war are sad, those of us that approved of the war see it as an acceptable by-blow of "freeing" the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator.
Personally, I don't like the war and am glad that we are getting out. But bad things happen in war, and I don't see how putting this sergeant in prison for the rest of his life would make the world feel any better about us. If he wasn't supposed to kill those people he shouldn't have been sent to that location. It will take a long time to rebuild our reputation in the world, maybe staying out of a foreign war for a decade or two will help.
On January 24 2012 22:18 SolidMotion wrote: If those who say those soldiers should have gotten much worst have never done any form of REAL military training then I am sorry but you are not qualified to debate on this matter. War is not a game, you never know when you could be ambushed when your not in safe zones. I only did the training for the Canadian reserve and when we did the simulator near the end of training it was fucking crazy. You're so tired it's hard to make good decisions since you have only slept 4 hours during the past 48 hours, the sound of artillery (even though they're fake) is crazy, you really feel where the impact comes from.
I'm sorry, but if I saw someone who was with me during training get blown up in pieces by a bomb when I'm super tired and exhausted as well as paranoid given the circumstance, I might, and you as well, act like that.
**Edit: O.o
First, you should not be allowed in the military if you cannot do the job. Modern military should be required to be able to do more than kill everyone in sight. Second, nothing of what you say is in any way any excuse of what he did, it might be used to lower the sentence slightly, but that is it.
On January 24 2012 22:18 SolidMotion wrote: If those who say those soldiers should have gotten much worst have never done any form of REAL military training then I am sorry but you are not qualified to debate on this matter. War is not a game, you never know when you could be ambushed when your not in safe zones. I only did the training for the Canadian reserve and when we did the simulator near the end of training it was fucking crazy. You're so tired it's hard to make good decisions since you have only slept 4 hours during the past 48 hours, the sound of artillery (even though they're fake) is crazy, you really feel where the impact comes from.
I'm sorry, but if I saw someone who was with me during training get blown up in pieces by a bomb when I'm super tired and exhausted as well as paranoid given the circumstance, I might, and you as well, act like that.
**Edit: O.o
First, you should not be allowed in the military if you cannot do the job. Modern military should be required to be able to do more than kill everyone in sight. Second, nothing of what you say is in any way any excuse of what he did, it might be used to lower the sentence slightly, but that is it.
The thing is the military doesn't have a great choice of who can be allowed in. Especially in 2005 with no end to the Iraq war in sight, recruitment was having a hugely hard time keeping up with demand. Soldiers who had served their tours were being asked to continue long past the time when they thought they would be freed from their obligations. National Guard troops were being sent to active combat zones. At that time you either had to be incredibly patriotic or down on your luck to be considering the military, and the military basically took who it could get. We were even considering formalizing the acceptance of illegal immigrants and felons into the army at that time.
On January 24 2012 22:26 CurLy[] wrote: i hate my country
Don't, there are a lot of great people still in the US and a lot to be proud of.
This is disgusting, the war against Iraq and Afghanistan is done for money only, AFAIK G. W bush has a lot of stocks in oil companies and made miliions of dollars from this war "http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm" , this is the freedom and democracy you are bringing? well keep it for yourself, we are way better without it.
On January 24 2012 09:44 liberal wrote: Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
^ Yup. Most insightful comment in the whole thread.
If you want a "discussion" and academic debate you have to frame it as such, as opposed to another knee-jerk reaction thread to a news story. This is, in fact, a very complex social, psycological, and diplomatic issue.
On January 24 2012 09:44 liberal wrote: Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
^ Yup. Most insightful comment in the whole thread.
If you want a "discussion" and academic debate you have to frame it as such, as opposed to another knee-jerk reaction thread to a news story. This is, in fact, a very complex social, psycological, and diplomatic issue.
No it's not a complex situation. It would've been such if it came from a smaller country. The US can, and will do / get away with whatever it wants in international politics, as been shown. Quite simple, really.
On January 24 2012 21:11 Pika Chu wrote: Maybe it's because soldiers are suffering psychological trauma, so they cannot be held truly responsible for their acts? But still, why not at least discharge him?
I believe this sets a very bad precedent, even in WWII sometimes commanders chose to punish people who fired at innocent civilians (i know of a few stories that happened in Romania).
Maybe I'm cynical but I think it's more like "We don't want to punish them too harshly because it might scare others off from enlisting."
I have no doubt they would punish someone who knowingly and deliberately targeted civilians. But as long as they are seen as basically good guys who made a mistake they'd rather protect them.
Well, that was expected. I dont get why US citizens are criticizing this on the internet instead of organizing protests though. Really, it doesnt take a genius to figure out decisions like this are directly supporting terrorism and thereby endangering the lives of US civilians. An upsurge of protests from the US public would clearly be the most effective way to fight terrorism, but I guess it wont happen and terrorists all over the world will have an easy time pointing out the ignorance of US people and recruiting new ppl to kill americans. To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
It is only logical a country that justifies a war against another country to put their own countrymen as better and more important than those they are fighting against. It is regretable but logical to understand.
On January 24 2012 22:18 SolidMotion wrote: If those who say those soldiers should have gotten much worst have never done any form of REAL military training then I am sorry but you are not qualified to debate on this matter. War is not a game, you never know when you could be ambushed when your not in safe zones. I only did the training for the Canadian reserve and when we did the simulator near the end of training it was fucking crazy. You're so tired it's hard to make good decisions since you have only slept 4 hours during the past 48 hours, the sound of artillery (even though they're fake) is crazy, you really feel where the impact comes from.
I'm sorry, but if I saw someone who was with me during training get blown up in pieces by a bomb when I'm super tired and exhausted as well as paranoid given the circumstance, I might, and you as well, act like that.
**Edit: O.o
First, you should not be allowed in the military if you cannot do the job. Modern military should be required to be able to do more than kill everyone in sight. Second, nothing of what you say is in any way any excuse of what he did, it might be used to lower the sentence slightly, but that is it.
The thing is the military doesn't have a great choice of who can be allowed in. Especially in 2005 with no end to the Iraq war in sight, recruitment was having a hugely hard time keeping up with demand. Soldiers who had served their tours were being asked to continue long past the time when they thought they would be freed from their obligations. National Guard troops were being sent to active combat zones. At that time you either had to be incredibly patriotic or down on your luck to be considering the military, and the military basically took who it could get. We were even considering formalizing the acceptance of illegal immigrants and felons into the army at that time.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
Ahm... He's german? How do you know from which part? Or if he was even alive "back" then... Are you calling the DDR (east germany) = UDSSR = Russia? Of which incident do you speak where Russia (or the US) went on a killing spree against german civilians?
On January 24 2012 22:08 Pika Chu wrote:I'm going to puke. Imagine a war in netherlands, imagine it under occupation, imagine the thousands of dead, the ruined cities, the millions of broken dreams. Do you actually understand that WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME? WAR KILLS PEOPLE! Have you ever spoken with one of your elders who's been in war?
The good old Ron Paul commerical approach.
What if Chinese forces were executing babies, live, on the evening news in Holland? Well I do believe I would disagree with such an action, perhaps send an angry letter or two.
You're one of the most superficial posters on tl.net and i've seen that over time. You're always up in balls about free speech no matter the costs. Would you live in poverty and misery being happy you're free to say whatever you want? Maybe you're really passionate about it but i doubt it. I doubt you'd rather live your life in a weel chair (because of a bomb) and be able to speak freely than live healthy in a totalitarian regime.
Take my money, take all of it.
I wish i had a hundred legs so i could lose them a hundred times over. I value my freedom of speech more then money or health. Living isn't even worth it if I was not allowed to speak my mind.
But maybe trinkets and money are all it takes for you to shelve over your freedom. A free hospital here and a free education there and you will sing whatever song the great leader wants you to sing, dance any dance he wants you to dance.
Saddam's criminal regime wouldn't have managed to destroy as many lives (and by destroyed live i also think of parents who lose children, losing your loved one, losing your parent, brother, friends) as this war did not in a hundred years. The people of Iraqi did not revolt against Sadddam, there was no revolution, there was a war that was uncalled from the iraqi people. Were iraqis content of getting rid of saddam? Yes, they would've wanted to see him gone probably! But would they wanted to pay this price? No, definitely not at this costs!
Saddam killed more people then the Iraq war did. Even if we disregard all the murders in his prisons, all the political executions, all the deaths by torture.
Saddam committed a genocide on the Kurdish people, causing easily as many victims as the Iraq war did. Saddam started a war with Iran and a war with Kuwait. Not in a hundred year? Saddam had already caused many times over the ammount of casualties from the Iraq war.
And you're making a paralel about east germany? When was east germany attacked? Do you even know the history of it's "revolution" right? They used protests to get rid of their rulers, not bombs. They yelled "Gorbi, help us" when Gorbaciov had a meeting with east germany ruler (i forgot his name). They went out on the streets and said what they want! How can you make a paralel between the two?
They were lucky, the USSR hesitated.
Saddam and his regime didn't hestitate. Any signs of an uprising were broken. Broken being a euphemism for the torture of everyone that took part and their families just to make a point.
If one of saddam's sons took over it would be hellhole right? What the hell is it now? A paradise? Being afraid of being blown up on the streets? Would you live there?
Edit: sorry for the off topic but i just had to...
I wouldn't live in Iraq, obviously. Why would I want to live in a country that has a lower standard of living and less freedom?
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
Oh, no I would not disagree with your statement; I would say this is a fair analysis.
However dihilde was basically saying that this incident will directly result in more terrorists. (He also claimed protesting would defeat terrorism, not sure where that came from) The point I was trying to make is that the situation is so very much more complicated that that. I'm sure many Iraqis were outraged and angry about the killings, but they are not all radical islamists who are going to pick up guns and become terrorists. The violence in Iraq is so much more complex than that, you have former Sadam supporter, Sunni versus Shia violence, groups like Al-Quada in Iraq fighting against what they percieve and US and Isreali influence, and many more I'm sure.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
Oh, no I would not disagree with your statement; I would say this is a fair analysis.
However dihilde was basically saying that this incident will directly result in more terrorists. (He also claimed protesting would defeat terrorism, not sure where that came from) The point I was trying to make is that the situation is so very much more complicated that that. I'm sure many Iraqis were outraged and angry about the killings, but they are not all radical islamists who are going to pick up guns and become terrorists. The violence in Iraq is so much more complex than that, you have former Sadam supporter, Sunni versus Shia violence, groups like Al-Quada in Iraq fighting against what they percieve and US and Isreali influence, and many more I'm sure.
Proving something like "this will directly result in more terrorists" is impossible. But on the whole it's somewhat likely that it will. And I agree that violence in Iraq is a more complex issue and terrorism in general even more so. But you can evaluate the effects of this incident in isolation.
It depends on what you think his point was. If he meant: "This is what causes terrorism, period", then I disagree too. If he meant: "Do less of this and we'll have less terrorism", then I think he's probably right.
Guess what, you want an adversarial legal system where the defense can use myriad delaying tactics and take the fight to the media, you have to accept that good lawyers and a media circus will sometimes cause cases to be dropped, or charges amended, or whatever. It doesn't mean that lives are less valued or something. The alternative is railroading people into jail.
The problem with the alternative is that it isn't always, and is usually almost never, the "right" people who get railroaded. And once you open that door just an inch, other people start trying to throw it wide open until you have innocent people left and right being thrown in jail.
On January 25 2012 03:24 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guess what, you want an adversarial legal system where the defense can use myriad delaying tactics and take the fight to the media, you have to accept that good lawyers and a media circus will sometimes cause cases to be dropped, or charges amended, or whatever. It doesn't mean that lives are less valued or something. The alternative is railroading people into jail.
Seems you people have no problem throwing away the legal system when its so called "terrorists" here. Indefinite detention, due process free assassination, drone strikes, renditions are all evidence that Americans don't give a shit about justice, they only give a shit about protecting their own and killing the "others".
This verdict does mean that Iraqi lives are less valued. The fact that he wasn't even discharged from the military after 6 others were given immunity to prosecute this one guy is a testament to the fact that the UCMJ is a piece of trash.
Maybe worth adding to the OP, honestly i'm sickened, how the fuck do you get away with this?
'A simple US military statement hinted at the bloody chain of events that the attack started - though subsequent scrutiny showed it to be far from the truth. It said: "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha.'
And how are you able to try hide it and then everything be totally fine once the truth is revealed?
agreed redviper, and i'm a veteran of that war. These guys are garbage and trash and should've been summarliy executed. No sarcasm. This verdict shames all of the services and all of America.
The amount of ...deriliction prevelent in this case through and through speaks of corruption and vileness of which i'd hoped our country was better. Worse is that in todays paper this got a 15-25 word blurb I hardly noticed. Sad.
I think that the men here should have had a much harsher punishment. If it was indeed manslaughter then life in prison seems about right. People say they were reacting in the "fog of war" or after seeing another soldier blown apart but they are trained for the very purpose of staying composed and not killing anything or anyone that moves. I think the above excuses are weak excuses but thats just my opinion. I support our troops, I'm American btw, but the actions by the soldiers and courts are ridiculous for this case.
On January 25 2012 10:35 SlyPanda wrote: I think that the men here should have had a much harsher punishment. If it was indeed manslaughter then life in prison seems about right. People say they were reacting in the "fog of war" or after seeing another soldier blown apart but they are trained for the very purpose of staying composed and not killing anything or anyone that moves. I think the above excuses are weak excuses but thats just my opinion. I support our troops, I'm American btw, but the actions by the soldiers and courts are ridiculous for this case.
Manslaughter, isn't manslaughter when you accidentally kill someone...? They invaded 3 seperate houses and shot 20 odd unarmed, men women and children to death...
A US marine who admitted charges linked to the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 should face no time in detention, a judge has recommended.
The decision by the judge at Camp Pendleton, California, must be approved by the commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Sgt Frank Wuterich faced a maximum of three months after admitting dereliction of duty in a plea deal.
He was one of eight marines charged over the killings at Haditha.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.
Military judge Lt Col David Jones said his hands had been tied by the terms of the plea agreement. However, he said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private.
The judge said he had decided not to dock the marine's pay because Wuterich is divorced with sole custody of his three young children.
Prosecutors had asked that Wuterich receive the maximum sentence of three months confinement, reduction in rank and forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay.
On January 24 2012 08:47 NtroP wrote: Thank goodness there are no plans to end our war on terrorism! Otherwise the majority of Americans abroad might be liable for their actions....
Where do you get a 'majority' of american's abroad from? Do you honestly think of the millions of troops deployed that more than half of them are committing war crimes?
Upon reading more on this situation, it seems investigation of the massacre was totally unprofessional cover up at the start. Only later did they try to actually investigate anything seriously, but it was too late as the prosecution bungled its job and gave immunity (for testimony even false testimony) to people, who with high likelihood actually committed the crimes. Only this guy who actually with high probability did not kill anyone, but was responsible for people who did, ended being prosecuted.
So in the end the sentence seems light anyway, but he was really only a scapegoat. And this incident just shows how deeply covering up crimes is rooted in US military and military justice system. Total joke of an investigation cannot easily be explained as isolated incident not reflecting on the whole as it is far from the only incident in very recent past that shows that punishing war crimes and crimes in general of the military are not a priority for the military if the victims are outside of military and not high-profile enough to warrant public outcry in the media and public.
On January 24 2012 22:08 Pika Chu wrote:I'm going to puke. Imagine a war in netherlands, imagine it under occupation, imagine the thousands of dead, the ruined cities, the millions of broken dreams. Do you actually understand that WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME? WAR KILLS PEOPLE! Have you ever spoken with one of your elders who's been in war?
The good old Ron Paul commerical approach.
What if Chinese forces were executing babies, live, on the evening news in Holland? Well I do believe I would disagree with such an action, perhaps send an angry letter or two.
You're one of the most superficial posters on tl.net and i've seen that over time. You're always up in balls about free speech no matter the costs. Would you live in poverty and misery being happy you're free to say whatever you want? Maybe you're really passionate about it but i doubt it. I doubt you'd rather live your life in a weel chair (because of a bomb) and be able to speak freely than live healthy in a totalitarian regime.
Take my money, take all of it.
I wish i had a hundred legs so i could lose them a hundred times over. I value my freedom of speech more then money or health. Living isn't even worth it if I was not allowed to speak my mind.
But maybe trinkets and money are all it takes for you to shelve over your freedom. A free hospital here and a free education there and you will sing whatever song the great leader wants you to sing, dance any dance he wants you to dance.
Saddam's criminal regime wouldn't have managed to destroy as many lives (and by destroyed live i also think of parents who lose children, losing your loved one, losing your parent, brother, friends) as this war did not in a hundred years. The people of Iraqi did not revolt against Sadddam, there was no revolution, there was a war that was uncalled from the iraqi people. Were iraqis content of getting rid of saddam? Yes, they would've wanted to see him gone probably! But would they wanted to pay this price? No, definitely not at this costs!
Saddam killed more people then the Iraq war did. Even if we disregard all the murders in his prisons, all the political executions, all the deaths by torture.
Saddam committed a genocide on the Kurdish people, causing easily as many victims as the Iraq war did. Saddam started a war with Iran and a war with Kuwait. Not in a hundred year? Saddam had already caused many times over the ammount of casualties from the Iraq war.
And you're making a paralel about east germany? When was east germany attacked? Do you even know the history of it's "revolution" right? They used protests to get rid of their rulers, not bombs. They yelled "Gorbi, help us" when Gorbaciov had a meeting with east germany ruler (i forgot his name). They went out on the streets and said what they want! How can you make a paralel between the two?
They were lucky, the USSR hesitated.
Saddam and his regime didn't hestitate. Any signs of an uprising were broken. Broken being a euphemism for the torture of everyone that took part and their families just to make a point.
If one of saddam's sons took over it would be hellhole right? What the hell is it now? A paradise? Being afraid of being blown up on the streets? Would you live there?
Edit: sorry for the off topic but i just had to...
I wouldn't live in Iraq, obviously. Why would I want to live in a country that has a lower standard of living and less freedom?
Maybe in 10-20 years I want to live in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The US supported him while doing it. Yes, including George W. Bush. HW and Congressional Republicans gave the veto-threat on the anti-genocide bill pushed by Al Gore in Congress while the genocide was happening in real time. That was in the 1990s, without major incidents since. What we could have said was look: if he kills again on that scale, we're going in. We're going to beat the shit out of him. But if he doesn't, no need to kill 200,000+ civilians. If American command really valued democracy, they would listen to it: and the people would tell you loud and clear: we don't want you here.
I notice you make a snide drive-by diss to Ron Paul's commercial without actually critiquing it. If I killed a person every day since the days of Columbus, I wouldn't have killed as many people that died in Iraq. You're the perfect example of an armchair warrior who doesn't actually weigh the consequences of action, simply asserting that because Saddam killed people, we had the right to go in and kill him regardless of the consequences. Yes he deserved to die. But the US shouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands of people to do it. And it's easy to say that someone else should die for their freedoms, as long as you're not the one dying. Oh sure, you know, great visionaries in the world died for freedom in the past. But they led a people who chose that path. The US gave no such courtesy to Iraq. Nobody wanted that.
Also more to the article's point, I would agree that greater prosecution should happen; the punishment should really fit the crime. The lack of evidence of course, stops this, but I would hope that testimonies from fellow soldiers would serve as sufficient evidence...
Seems you people have no problem throwing away the legal system when its so called "terrorists" here. Indefinite detention, due process free assassination, drone strikes, renditions are all evidence that Americans don't give a shit about justice, they only give a shit about protecting their own and killing the "others".
I was going to make a point about this, but you made it even beautifully. You'd deny to soldiers what you'd give to terrorists, which pretty much says it all.
Both are tried in military courts, both have lawyers, your problem is you'd rather soldiers get the shaft and terrorists get the technicality route to freedom.
This verdict does mean that Iraqi lives are less valued. The fact that he wasn't even discharged from the military after 6 others were given immunity to prosecute this one guy is a testament to the fact that the UCMJ is a piece of trash.
A Pakistani talking about valuing human life is pretty much one of the biggest jokes you can find.
Seems you people have no problem throwing away the legal system when its so called "terrorists" here. Indefinite detention, due process free assassination, drone strikes, renditions are all evidence that Americans don't give a shit about justice, they only give a shit about protecting their own and killing the "others".
I was going to make a point about this, but you made it even beautifully. You'd deny to soldiers what you'd give to terrorists, which pretty much says it all.
Both are tried in military courts, both have lawyers, your problem is you'd rather soldiers get the shaft and terrorists get the technicality route to freedom.
This verdict does mean that Iraqi lives are less valued. The fact that he wasn't even discharged from the military after 6 others were given immunity to prosecute this one guy is a testament to the fact that the UCMJ is a piece of trash.
A Pakistani talking about valuing human life is pretty much one of the biggest jokes you can find.
wow. i am ashamed to have you as my fellow American.
After 22 of july, there was a massive thread where (mostly Americans) argued that Norwegian law was too soft. They argued that Breivik should suffer the death penalty.
Well, I guess massacre isn't so bad if its Americans doing it.
Seems you people have no problem throwing away the legal system when its so called "terrorists" here. Indefinite detention, due process free assassination, drone strikes, renditions are all evidence that Americans don't give a shit about justice, they only give a shit about protecting their own and killing the "others".
I was going to make a point about this, but you made it even beautifully. You'd deny to soldiers what you'd give to terrorists, which pretty much says it all.
Both are tried in military courts, both have lawyers, your problem is you'd rather soldiers get the shaft and terrorists get the technicality route to freedom.
This verdict does mean that Iraqi lives are less valued. The fact that he wasn't even discharged from the military after 6 others were given immunity to prosecute this one guy is a testament to the fact that the UCMJ is a piece of trash.
A Pakistani talking about valuing human life is pretty much one of the biggest jokes you can find.
User was temp banned for this post.
I am also American actually so yes both my countries are guilty of being extremely dickish to the rest of the world Doesn't mean that I support either terrorists or soldiers. Just like I think that if OBL had been acquitted it would have been a travesty of justice I think this is a travesty of justice.
I don't support due process free sentences. I also don't support admitted murderers getting away with it. Why give 6 people immunity to make a no-time served plea deal? Try them all. Let them be acquitted if thats how the chips fall. The half hearted prosecution as a single event would be bad, but there is a pattern of low balling the punishments for war criminals and that is a blight on the sincerity of justice in the country.
On January 25 2012 10:35 SlyPanda wrote: I think that the men here should have had a much harsher punishment. If it was indeed manslaughter then life in prison seems about right. People say they were reacting in the "fog of war" or after seeing another soldier blown apart but they are trained for the very purpose of staying composed and not killing anything or anyone that moves. I think the above excuses are weak excuses but thats just my opinion. I support our troops, I'm American btw, but the actions by the soldiers and courts are ridiculous for this case.
Manslaughter, isn't manslaughter when you accidentally kill someone...? They invaded 3 separate houses and shot 20 odd unarmed, men women and children to death...
... accidentally. They need to take better maintenance of their guns, so you're saying? It's alright since they're not even going to be paying for accidentally killing people.
War will never be "clean" and if a friend gets killed just infront of your eyes it may charge you, to do something unlogical and cruel.
Training should be improved and psychological tests for persons in charge of a squad.
That said he already get punished but still it should be watched carefully and maybe from now on the sentences will be a bit higher. Im happy there was a investigation and his military career is over after that.
Hopefully this wont repead in the future it destabilise the trust people might have gotten till that point in time.
American soldiers who commit warcrimes, gets joke-like punishment. This case may have lacked evidence, but so many others didnt, and American soldiers still gets off lightly. Oh noes I tortured and humilated inmates, I got demoted, poor me. Makes me sick
On January 26 2012 09:34 Chilling5pr33 wrote: War will never be "clean" and if a friend gets killed just infront of your eyes it may charge you, to do something unlogical and cruel.
Training should be improved and psychological tests for persons in charge of a squad.
That said he already get punished but still it should be watched carefully and maybe from now on the sentences will be a bit higher. Im happy there was a investigation and his military career is over after that.
Hopefully this wont repead in the future it destabilise the trust people might have gotten till that point in time.
Except how the actual killers went free because of botched investigation and attempted coverup by authorities. This guy was not even the one that killed anyone. His particular case is not even the biggest problem. Biggest problem is how badly the investigation was done and how the actual killers went free without any sort of punishment.
On January 26 2012 09:34 Chilling5pr33 wrote: War will never be "clean" and if a friend gets killed just infront of your eyes it may charge you, to do something unlogical and cruel.
Training should be improved and psychological tests for persons in charge of a squad.
That said he already get punished but still it should be watched carefully and maybe from now on the sentences will be a bit higher. Im happy there was a investigation and his military career is over after that.
Hopefully this wont repead in the future it destabilise the trust people might have gotten till that point in time.
Except how the actual killers went free because of botched investigation and attempted coverup by authorities. This guy was not even the one that killed anyone. His particular case is not even the biggest problem. Biggest problem is how badly the investigation was done and how the actual killers went free without any sort of punishment.
yeah that sounds more like that what i heared before about cases close to this one
But what was he doing? Was he the wistleblower on that incident?
On January 26 2012 09:34 Chilling5pr33 wrote: War will never be "clean" and if a friend gets killed just infront of your eyes it may charge you, to do something unlogical and cruel.
Training should be improved and psychological tests for persons in charge of a squad.
That said he already get punished but still it should be watched carefully and maybe from now on the sentences will be a bit higher. Im happy there was a investigation and his military career is over after that.
Hopefully this wont repead in the future it destabilise the trust people might have gotten till that point in time.
Except how the actual killers went free because of botched investigation and attempted coverup by authorities. This guy was not even the one that killed anyone. His particular case is not even the biggest problem. Biggest problem is how badly the investigation was done and how the actual killers went free without any sort of punishment.
yeah that sounds more like that what i heared before about cases close to this one
But what was he doing? Was he the wistleblower on that incident?
He was a commanding the men that did that, but as far as is known did not participate and probably even did not know at the time what was happening. But after the fact it seems he tried to cover up the incident to protect them.
I'm totally shocked, I don't even know what to say... killing 24 iraqis suddenly became less dangerous than stealing or pirating...
Now, If an iraqi went to kill 24 unarmed americans wouldn't he be a terrorist and they could assassinate and bomb the shit out of him creating the pretext that american citizen have higher life value ?
This is so immoral, but nothing surprises me anymore from US military
On January 28 2012 02:09 Diks wrote: I'm totally shocked, I don't even know what to say... killing 24 iraqis suddenly became less dangerous than stealing or pirating...
Now, If an iraqi went to kill 24 unarmed americans wouldn't he be a terrorist and they could assassinate and bomb the shit out of him creating the pretext that american citizen have higher life value ?
This is so immoral, but nothing surprises me anymore from US military
That particular guy actually did not kill anyone with high likelihood. He still got off too lightly for his part in the whole issue, but the real issue is how can US military justice be (on purpose or not) so incompetent as not to be able to prosecute this at least somewhat professionally.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
On January 24 2012 09:44 liberal wrote: Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
Similar thoughts ran through my head, especially when I saw that neither an Iraqi nor an American created the topic. And we even had "DeepElemBlues" filling the role of the ignorant.
It seems like no one really said "this man deserves the very limited punishment he got". It's simply a ruling to be condemned by all (including Americans), and for some posters (including Americans) to also add an anti-US comment on the way before hitting post.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
/Sigh do you judge the morale of the country based on the few? Are you going to say EVERY U.S soldier who is/was in Iraq don't value Iraqi lives at all? Because i think thats disgusting maybe i am taking your post out of context if so please tell. But for every atrocious encounter such as this i can guarantee you there is a heart warming story of an America soldier risking their life for an Iraqi. Of course the only things we ever hear about are controversial actions such as these. That being said have a little more faith in your own country or at least the men and women serving in uniform.
Now the only part you are wrong about in the last section is their lies, the government did not lie about it they just sort of hoped they could shuffle this past the press and in a few years everyone will forget about which i DO find absolutely horrid and i believe there needs to be a change somewhere if this kind of atrocities is allowed with such a lenient sentencing.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
/Sigh do you judge the morale of the country based on the few? Are you going to say EVERY U.S soldier who is/was in Iraq don't value Iraqi lives at all? Because i think thats disgusting maybe i am taking your post out of context if so please tell. But for every atrocious encounter such as this i can guarantee you there is a heart warming story of an America soldier risking their life for an Iraqi. Of course the only things we ever hear about are controversial actions such as these. That being said have a little more faith in your own country or at least the men and women serving in uniform.
Now the only part you are wrong about in the last section is their lies, the government did not lie about it they just sort of hoped they could shuffle this past the press and in a few years everyone will forget about which i DO find absolutely horrid and i believe there needs to be a change somewhere if this kind of atrocities is allowed with such a lenient sentencing.
I was being too general with my statement, i see where it can seem vague, i apologize. When I say fear and lies, I mean the general usage we see of the two from our government (I.E terrorism, not the only one however) And you are absolutely 100% correct about the American soldiers who help out Iraqis, I know now I should have put more emphasis on Americas history of war instead of making it seem like I was only talking about this one. I look up to the troops a lot. one of my friends is a vet and lost both eyes due to an IED as a humvee driver and he drove the humvee blind through the battlefield to save his friends. You are right, the actions of few do not dictate the actions of the general population, but, just because this case came forward what else is being hidden? I'm a pessimist at my core, and sometimes I focus too much on the negative, so thank you for showing me a little positive in light of this situation too.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
edit:
Here is a damning fact that I wasn't aware of earlier.
The "Medina standard" is based upon the 1971 prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.[10] It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action. However, Medina was acquitted of all charges.[8][11][12]
Both damning for Wuterich and for the UCMJ which didn't punish Medina.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter..
"It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion"
the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter..
"It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion"
the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
Is your post serious ? I'm not sure if you are joking or just...
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter..
"It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion"
the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
Is your post serious ? I'm not sure if you are joking or just...
the ambiguity is just sooo teasing huh, kinda ironically reflects both sides of the argument from the whole thread: literary art!
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.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
edit:
Here is a damning fact that I wasn't aware of earlier.
The "Medina standard" is based upon the 1971 prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.[10] It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action. However, Medina was acquitted of all charges.[8][11][12]
Both damning for Wuterich and for the UCMJ which didn't punish Medina.
War is illegal? O joy, international law of war explain to me.
Occupation is illegal? O do explain legalities of war. I do think that the soldier ought to have gotten a lot more, but calling war illegal is silly. REAL silly.
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.
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.
On January 28 2012 09:51 Praetorial wrote: Occupation is illegal? O do explain legalities of war. I do think that the soldier ought to have gotten a lot more, but calling war illegal is silly. REAL silly.
Yes, technically wars that are undeclared by Congress are illegal. If the president declares war on some country and sends the army over there, it's illegal.
Also, there are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, that make certain acts in war illegal, some of which the defendants in this case have allegedly committed.
what that guy did was fucking insulting to the the american people. I mean we spent what 11 years over in iraq and then to have this surface after all the bullshit we've been putting up with now. These people should not serve in prison, these damn fuckers need to be tried and executed. Even the ones who said: 'we were just fallowing orders' You get involved you're guilty of manslaughter simple as that!
On January 28 2012 09:51 Praetorial wrote: Occupation is illegal? O do explain legalities of war. I do think that the soldier ought to have gotten a lot more, but calling war illegal is silly. REAL silly.
Yes, technically wars that are undeclared by Congress are illegal. If the president declares war on some country and sends the army over there, it's illegal.
Also, there are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, that make certain acts in war illegal, some of which the defendants in this case have allegedly committed.
Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
There are merits to this as certainly the government that represent the people is the people, thats how democracy works.
But I think to say that US is uncivilized is straight misjudgment.
There are flaws, but it means it needs to be corrected.
If you support the American empire you basically have immunity from prosecution. If you oppose the American empire you can be detained indefinitely without due process and without even being charged with a crime.
I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US. These men should all be in jail for life and now they walk freely (you probably get more than 3months for downloading some shitty mp3). This is terrorism at its finest. Im know horrible things happen in war and it brings out the worst in human beings but this ruling makes it look like the US goverment supports these atrocities. Im sorry for this poor op but I havent seen a thread yet. I feel that this needs to be discussed and honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters.
The different sentence is not the result of the US placing a lower value on Iraqi lives. The lower sentence is because they are soldiers and thus they are not treated exactly the same as civilians.
I agree that a heavier sentence would be in order but to suggest that racism has anything to do with it is just ridiculous.
People were killed, why isn't that bad enough? Why do you need to make it so much worse by conjuring up false reasons? Are dead people not enough anymore?
Just deal with the facts. Argue about the facts. There is no need to pretend that racism had anything to do with this.
You just made assumptions. We don't (and probably will never) know whether racism is part of this.
On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote: Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers.
I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried.
The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US. These men should all be in jail for life and now they walk freely (you probably get more than 3months for downloading some shitty mp3). This is terrorism at its finest. Im know horrible things happen in war and it brings out the worst in human beings but this ruling makes it look like the US goverment supports these atrocities. Im sorry for this poor op but I havent seen a thread yet. I feel that this needs to be discussed and honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters.
The different sentence is not the result of the US placing a lower value on Iraqi lives. The lower sentence is because they are soldiers and thus they are not treated exactly the same as civilians.
I agree that a heavier sentence would be in order but to suggest that racism has anything to do with it is just ridiculous.
People were killed, why isn't that bad enough? Why do you need to make it so much worse by conjuring up false reasons? Are dead people not enough anymore?
Just deal with the facts. Argue about the facts. There is no need to pretend that racism had anything to do with this.
You just made assumptions. We don't (and probably will never) know whether racism is part of this.
I'm sure if racism wasn't a factor, white people would still kill brown people. /sarcasm
As an inside info, when Russell Peters should have performed for soldiers. All of the troops were like "wtf is this guy doing here?" . He is brown, you get the point.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter..
"It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion"
the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
Hey man,
I'm actually an English major. The fact that my browser autocorrected "government" to "Government" is not my fault and I overlooked it in the moment of making my post. If that is the whole thing that really makes you sick out of the post maybe you should reread what I said...
Also, you saying that the United States is not influenced or ran by a "book" such as the Bible then you my friend are sadly just being very naive. What about our previous president who got us in to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars in the first place? He would come out and say to the media that he has to pray hard on these subjects blah blah blah.
Another point: All of our money says "One Nation Under God" , or , "In GOD We Trust." If that is not being influenced by the Bible then I don't know what is
I understand these men are under pressure, and most of us would have difficulty over there.
However, my country (I am American) should have investigated this MUCH EARLIER. Then a heavier punishment would have been due, because the investigation would have been more correct.
As soon as nations march to war, the door is opened to this kind of thing. In my opinion the time to express outrage isn't once the walls come down and something like this comes to the public's attention, it's when leaders are so willing to commit to war in the first place.
As much as this needs to be punished, part of me feels sorry for Joe Average that's trained to kill, handed a rifle, thrown in a pressure cooker, and then finally snaps.
Interesting thread, some good arguments made and lots of stuff I hadn't actually considered while reading the initial post. The stress of war is explanation perhaps from what happened, but certainly doesn't excuse it. If you extend the 'madness/stress etc' defence to civilian society, the strain on the legal system would be too much. 'Oh I was distressed from heroin withdrawal symptoms, so not in control of my actions' etc etc
@My American posters on TL. A lot of measured, reasonable posts. What I have come to expect from this fine forum, where people generally leave their nationality in the cloakroom and band together in a love of Starcraft. You guys are terribly served by the government that is supposed to represent you, and the policies enacted in your name are used as a weapon to bash you as an American. My sympathies, would fucking piss me off anyway
@zalz, I have nothing against your freedom of speech > everything else stance, by all means live by that maxim if you want. True belief in a concept regardless of circumstance is an increasing rarity so I applaud you for that.
However, you're wrong on a lot of things. Corruption, especially within security forces will not allow the kind of freedom of speech you envisage to come to pass and actually benefit the people in question. As an example of what I'm talking about http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay
A stable society in terms of structural integrity, regardless of the political ideology implemented, is needed for any society to enjoy any of the freedoms that we hold dear. Stability and functioning infrastructure is the bedrock on which you build a democratic society. All the power vacuum created post-Saddam has done is change the perpetrators of violence, Instead of the previous situation - 'don't criticise the Baathist regime, and you'll probably be ok'. Now many of the citizens of Iraq live in fear of any number of faceless threats, be it sectarian violence or somebody out to make a buck off extorting their families.
Not that democracy is all that great, but if your goal is actual, FUNCTIONING democracy you need to have a stable base on which to build. Iraq doesn't have that and any number of 'oh but at least they're free' sentiments are redundant.
On January 28 2012 09:51 Praetorial wrote: Occupation is illegal? O do explain legalities of war. I do think that the soldier ought to have gotten a lot more, but calling war illegal is silly. REAL silly.
Yes, technically wars that are undeclared by Congress are illegal. If the president declares war on some country and sends the army over there, it's illegal.
Also, there are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, that make certain acts in war illegal, some of which the defendants in this case have allegedly committed.
I would say "So?", but that would not explain anything.
So?
Now, the mandatory explanation: Congress *hint hint* approved the war. And *hint hint*, you MAY have noticed that SOME people are on TRIAL for these acts. Now, while that may be a little much, I'm sure that you can figure out that you know, maybe, this war ain't illegal.
I ask that unless you have served please take a step back and seriously consider your words. The war does a toll on peoples pysche, I haven't had a tour in 2 years and I still have nightmares of some of the stuff that happened over there. It was quiet for a bit but those little even like seeing friends being killed puts you in a dark place.
It doesn't justify what he did but after seeing his friend get blown apart makes a huge impact on someone and haunts you forever.
He should be dishonorably discharged for being anywhere near that kind of civilian slaughter along with everyone else in his squad. I don't believe they wanted to kill a group of civilians but the fact is that they did, and its not excusable.
Oh well, in the end its just another few body bags to all the people with power.
Right off the bat you lost me with "How can a civilized people treat others like that". It is just one person, it would be equivalent to me assuming you are a nazi right off the bat because you are German. A person does not represent a whole culture and there are terrible people in every nation on earth.
In addition, what he did was wrong, but that is not something to judge him upon after not being a witness to the situation and also not knowing what actual combat is like.
On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote: Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers.
I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried.
The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed.
I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote: Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers.
I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried.
The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed.
I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
I doubt our respective governments could make such a request with a straight face, not as if our nations have not committed their fair share of questionable acts around the world.
On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote: Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers.
I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried.
The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed.
I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
Yes I have read about the War Crimes committed during WW2/Vietnam, its true that victors write history.
I almost get a "good old boys club" feeling like the way investigations on a police officer by the police end with little to no punishment for obvious wrong doing and likewise from the military.
War is a bitch. You don't send people to prison because they fight for their country in the romantic sense. When it's war people get scared and they make mistakes.
On January 28 2012 14:01 cydial wrote: War is a bitch. You don't send people to prison because they fight for their country in the romantic sense. When it's war people get scared and they make mistakes.
bursting into multiple unarmed civilians houses and shooting 24 innocents is a mistake...?
Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap.
On January 28 2012 14:36 Ansinjunger wrote: Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap.
Great post actually, although I'd always assumed there was some attention paid to the kind of training you're talking about already. If not it definitely should be, especially as most recent military interventions are ostensibly on peacekeeping/nation-building grounds.
On January 28 2012 14:36 Ansinjunger wrote: Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap.
Great post actually, although I'd always assumed there was some attention paid to the kind of training you're talking about already. If not it definitely should be, especially as most recent military interventions are ostensibly on peacekeeping/nation-building grounds.
I've wondered that, and I hope so, but it would seem more is needed.
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points.
1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house.
2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals.
And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655.
here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter..
"It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion"
the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
Is your post serious ? I'm not sure if you are joking or just...
the ambiguity is just sooo teasing huh, kinda ironically reflects both sides of the argument from the whole thread: literary art!
If it was an intent, then you are good. The terrible logic is reasonably easy to pull of, but the terrible grammar and punctuation is genius.
It was a plea bargain. You can't cry about this when the other possibility was that he got away scott free. For all we know there was no evidence of his involvement at all, and they just opted for the easy out.
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 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 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 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.
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
