This Is How We Treat Our Heros?

Question

You can hear Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama just laughing their behinds off over how an American hero can get shafted these days. It makes me sick!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080817/ap_on_re_us/marines_fallujah;_ylt=AnScfTo6IUFsibxOm0TfqLBH2ocA

Answer 1

Ok, now I'm pissed... this PC lib c**p is pure c**p... if this weren't an election year, none of it would be happening.

To those agree with the charges, please, do not support me as a Troop... I don't want it.

I think I'll file this under "blame America first/ murtha type c**p"

Answer 2

Agreed, its wrong.

Answer 3

It is this type of reasoning that absolutely makes me sick, even a republican says that he should stand trail.  Only a twisted mind would come to the conclusion that those named would be jumping for joy.  If you have to assign blame and I think that you do, stick it with president,

it was his decision to send troops and all the brave men and women who get trashed do so because of his orders.  

Answer 4

Here are the problems with this type of prosecution.

1. If a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman comitts a crime while they are subject to the UCMJ they are required to be tried by a military court which also means military jurors.  That alone would overturn any conviction if it was appealed.

2. He may or may not have committed a crime by killing whom he did.  However, there is no telling what happened between the time that he detained them and the time that he fired.  Did they break the flex cuffs (plastic restraints) and create a threat?  Was one of them trying to set off a booby-trap?  Was everyone in the building detained or did a fired fight break out and the detainees became casualties of the fire fight?  Did the detainees die from wounds received prior to being detained?  All of those questions have to be asked before he can be convicted.

3. Was he given an illegal order?  The writers of the AP make it sound that way, but as we all know writers have their own agendas.  In the case that he was given an illegal order and followed it he would be guilty, but so would the leader that gave it.

In all of these cases there are so many gray areas that have to be probed and the prosecution has to hope for an ideal set of witnesses and evidence to prove everything that happened.  That is the greatness of the presumption of innocence, and even a law student could see the problems facing the prosecution.

So very frankly I see this as being media grandstanding more than anything else.  Look at the Marine that shot a wounded combatant reaching for a weapon.  They tried him and less than a week into the trial the prosecution withdrew the charges and he was reinstated to full duty and has been promoted since then.

So don't blow a gasket over the initial reports out of the potential of a crime being committed and remember that the presumption of innocence still applies to everyone.

Answer 5

Do you think killing Pow's and detainees is a right thing? their are many horror things that happen in fallujah doesnt mean our guys can kill pows...   Rules of Engagement, Geneva convention and law of armed conflict clearly say if a person has surrendered his weapon he should be treated humanely yea its bs that they turtore when one of ours gets caught but doesnt excuse anyone to break the law that US soldiers that they swore to uphold.   This thing that they did is not look like how inncent over there they look at it a US marine kills a defenseless iraqi and  its gonna make things hard for our boys over there. This is just merely a small pic of what the big picture is thats why he is prosecuted because of a severe mistake that he is been briefed many times before he walked that ground.   Just because its sounds wrong doesnt mean that he is totally innocent for all of us its just 5% of the story of what we know so we all never gonna know...