Apology?

[Trollbait]

Jecks' apology for directly stating that I was blaming individuals for deliberately killing innocent Iraqis

I don't see where I said that. /shrug

[Ddrak]

Jecks' apology for directly stating that I was blaming individuals for deliberately killing innocent Iraqis

I don't see where I said that. /shrug

Dammit - there goes all my high ground.

Sorry.

Dd

[Trollbait]

While I am on a roll I noticed you said this....

Murder in a military court is not the same charge as murder in a civilian court.

You are right, it is not. What some were charged with is "Negligent Homicide" which under UCMJ Article 134 carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, forfeiture of pay, and dishonorable discharge.

ZOMG ONLY 3 YEARS!!! would cry Klast and his ilk.

Negligent Homicide in say......oh, I dunno....Ohio, for instance....

It is a First Degree Misdemeanor and punishable by a maximum of 6 months in jail.

The standards of proof for both the civilian version and the military version are similar.

Some were charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 118 (Unpremeditated murder) which carries a maximum sentence of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and life in prison.

And some were charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 119 (Voluntary Manslaughter) which carries a maximum sentence of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 15 years.


Since these charges do correlate directly or similarly to civilian murder charges and the standards which are used to apply them are nearly identical in most cases I fail to grasp your argument that these murder charges are somehow "different" than they would be under a civilian structure, though I do understand the concept you are getting at I do not think it applies.

[Ddrak]

What I was really trying to say is when you're in a job that involves killing people (though hopefully not that often), the most obvious defense against a murder charge isn't to debate the killing itself but whether you were ordered to do so and had no way of knowing if the order was illegal. It's why a military court is a bad venue for defending the media accusations - any reasonable military lawyer will be avoiding the killing altogether and just saying their client believed he was working under the RoE and orders his commander was giving. No need for anything else. It's probably true too and hard as hell to prove otherwise.

In a civilian situation, you can't defend killing someone by claiming you were being told to. It's simply not a valid defense.


What I really think is the issue is the military STILL doesn't know how to deal with public perception and the media. You can't just handle things this volatile in a strictly military manner with need-to-know stuff floating around or the whole thing is going to look awfully like a cover-up, which only gives the insurgency recruiting fodder and the military a bad name back home. As soon as the story broke, the Pentagon should have had every reporter they could reasonable get their hands on crawling all over the thing with military investigators on 24-hour availability for interviews etc.

When Murtha stood up and said crap on the Senate floor, the military should have very publicly invited him around (with a sampling of GOP folks to keep him honest) to view the investigation's progress.

When the public image of the military is harmed, the military can't afford to look like they are covering stuff up or it's only going to hurt the nation in the long run. When you're going for hearts and minds in both Iraq and the US, you can't afford anything less.

Dd

[Trollbait]

When Murtha stood up and said crap on the Senate floor

Not to pick a nit but he is a congressman.

the military should have very publicly invited him around (with a sampling of GOP folks to keep him honest) to view the investigation's progress.

As a former ranking member and current Chairman of the House Subcomittee on Defense, John Murtha has access to the facts of the investigation and its progress at any time he chooses. He would rather spout off for political gain, however, than to tell the American public the facts.

[Ddrak]

Not to pick a nit but he is a congressman.

For some reason I had Ted Kennedy in my brain. I just get them all confused sometimes.

As a former ranking member and current Chairman of the House Subcomittee on Defense, John Murtha has access to the facts of the investigation and its progress at any time he chooses. He would rather spout off for political gain, however, than to tell the American public the facts.

I know he has access. My point is the public doesn't know and certainly doesn't know what the results of the investigation are. That's a failure on the part of the Army to manage PR. It shouldn't be up to Murtha or his ilk to disseminate these things, because if you leave it to politicians then you're only going to get stories for political gain.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

It still doesn't change anything I said. Only apologists are claiming that they were killed by someone other than our troops. the military courts are simply arguing over whether proper procedure was followed. Whether the procedure for shooting unarmed civilians attempting to surrender was followed.

[Klast Brell]

And you may wish to go back and check on Ohio's Negligent Homicide definition.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/jun/07/m ... -homicide/
All three were in the same room, and Buccino was handling a loaded gun that discharged. Police called it an accidental shooting.

You were playing with the gun and it went off. You ran a red light and hit a motorcycle. You did not intend to kill someone, but you were being irresponsible and someone died because of it. That's Negligent Homicide on Ohio.

[Trollbait]

You did not intend to kill someone, but you were being irresponsible and someone died because of it. That's Negligent Homicide on Ohio.

Yeah....and that is Negligent Homicide in the UCMJ.

(1) That a certain person is dead;

(2) That this death resulted from the act or failure to act of the accused;

(3) That the killing by the accused was unlawful;

(4) That the act or failure to act of the accused which caused the death amounted to simple negligence; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

That is what at least 1 of the Marines was charged with. That charge was dismissed on lack of evidence.

the military courts are simply arguing over whether proper procedure was followed.

Not entirely. Most of the charges that have been dismissed (most notably the ones dealing with MURDER) were dismissed on a lack of evidence basis.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=12634743

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

Ware said prosecution of Sharratt could set a "dangerous precedent that ... may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq."

"Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy," Ware said.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your witch hunt, Klast.

[Klast Brell]

So in the end we have a bunch of dead unarmed civilians shot by our guys but no one is guilty of anything. Just like My Lai.

[Trollbait]

So in the end we have a bunch of dead unarmed civilians shot by our guys but no one is guilty of anything.

I dispute your claim that all civilians killed in Haditha were slain by U.S. Marines but even if they were there is no conclusive evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice or that the Marines did not follow the RoE so I say to you........welcome to war. Unless you can prove that they executed those people then trying to charge these men with murder would be like attempting to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

No matter how much you would like this to be My Lai revisited it clearly is not even close and every time you suggest it you end up sounding like a buffoon.