PDA

View Full Version : The kidnap murder of US soldiers was 'revenge for rape & murder of Iraqi woman?


memyselfI
06-30-2006, 01:31 PM
I was wrong. On the thread about the kidnap, torture, and murder of the two American soldiers I said we'd seen so much that nothing more could shock us...

well, color me shocked. This story looks as if it could get awhole lot uglier. The two slain soldiers are from the same platoon as FIVE US soldiers being investigated for the rape and murder of an Iraqi woman and her family.

What a shame if these two paid for the actions of others with their lives. A radio report said one of the accused rapists confessed after the murder of the two soldiers... :banghead: :cuss: :shake:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE link announcing the investigations:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060630_5552.html



U.S. troops accused of killing Iraq family
By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_investigated


BEIJI, Iraq - Five U.S. soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three relatives, an American military official said Friday, describing the latest allegations of abuse of Iraqi civilians.

The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

The U.S. command issued a sparse statement, saying Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad. The statement had no other details.

The case represents the latest allegations against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis. At least 14 U.S. troops have been convicted.

The United States also is investigating allegations that two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19 in a revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing.

"The entire investigation will encompass everything that could have happened that evening. We're not releasing any specifics of an ongoing investigation," military spokesman Maj. Todd Breasseale said of the Mahmoudiyah allegations.

"There is no indication what led soldiers to this home. The investigation just cracked open. We're just beginning to dig into the details."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he had no additional details on the incident but added that the military routinely investigates all allegations of misconduct.

However, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah.

The official told the AP the accused soldiers were from the same platoon as the two slain soldiers. The military has said one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded.

The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one of them to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22.

According to a senior Army official, the alleged incident was first revealed by a soldier during a routine counseling-type session. The official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said that soldier did not witness the incident but heard about it.

A second soldier, who also was not involved, said he overhead soldiers conspiring to commit the crimes, and then later saw bloodstains on their clothes, the official said.

He also said the four people killed included three adults and a child, and one of the adults was the woman who allegedly was raped.

One of the accused soldiers already has been discharged and is believed to be in the United States, several U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The others have had their weapons taken away and are confined to Forward Operating Base Mahmoudiyah.

Senior officers were aware of the family's death but believed it was due to sectarian violence, common in the religiously mixed town, a U.S. official said.

The killings appeared to have been a "crime of opportunity," the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols.

___

AP correspondent Ryan Lenz is embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in Beiji, Iraq. He was previously embedded with the 502nd Infantry Regiment in Mahmoudiyah.

__

The Associated Press News and Information Research Center and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

Cochise
06-30-2006, 01:36 PM
Oh, well then I guess there's nothing wrong with what the insurgents did, huh?

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 01:38 PM
Maybe once someone is convicted of something you'll have a story here.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 01:40 PM
Allah's stupid box could justify anything the insurgents do. If you believe for 2 seconds they wouldn't have done the same thing to two infidel soldiers caught from another platoon you are absolutely wacked.

Our soldiers have done tons of good things over there too. Remind me of all the times you praised our troops for the good stuff.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 01:49 PM
Oh, well then I guess there's nothing wrong with what the insurgents did, huh?

Who said that? I said it would be a shame if the two murdered soldiers paid with their lives for something they weren't involved in. Unfortunately, in this war, too many people believe in an eye for an eye but it's usually someelse's eye that is getting it.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 01:51 PM
Maybe once someone is convicted of something you'll have a story here.

There is a story here. One of the accused has confessed and apparently two witnesses within the platoon have come forth. You can't believe this story surfaced by accident. Someone in the military has leaked it so that when charges are filed it's old news.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 01:51 PM
Who said that? I said it would be a shame if the two murdered soldiers paid with their lives for something they weren't involved in. Unfortunately, in this war, too many people believe in an eye for an eye but it's usually someelse's eye that is getting it.

Praise Allah!!!

Donger
06-30-2006, 01:55 PM
Unfortunately, in this war, too many people believe in an eye for an eye but it's usually someelse's eye that is getting it.

In ANY war.

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 01:56 PM
There is a story here. One of the accused has confessed and apparently two witnesses within the platoon have come forth. You can't believe this story surfaced by accident. Someone in the military has leaked it so that when charges are filed it's old news.

And there you have it....guilty until proven innocent.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 01:58 PM
In ANY war.

Absolutely. But we are there to stop this sort of thing from happening...

You think the Iraqi people see much difference between SH's army commiting attrocities and our own?

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 01:59 PM
Absolutely. But we are there to stop this sort of thing from happening...



There it is again.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:01 PM
And there you have it....guilty until proven innocent.

No, they will have a trial to determine their legal guilt. However, as I understand it if you confess you are admitting guilt. Do you have a different understanding of a confession?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confession

con·fes·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-fshn)
n.
The act or process of confessing.
Something confessed, especially disclosure of one's sins to a priest for absolution.
A written or oral statement acknowledging guilt, made by one who has been accused or charged with an offense.

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:01 PM
Absolutely. But we are there to stop this sort of thing from happening...

You think the Iraqi people see much difference between SH's army commiting attrocities and our own?

Yes, I do. I think that many of them will view this as what it is: a rare and isolated incident. Under Hussein, they were commonplace and SOP.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:02 PM
Absolutely. But we are there to stop this sort of thing from happening...

You think the Iraqi people see much difference between SH's army commiting attrocities and our own?

The act itself or the number of incidents? :shake:

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:03 PM
BTW, who else would have bet that mememe was going to post this? I saw it earlier today and said to myself, "Boy, this one's got mememe all over it."

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:04 PM
Yes, I do. I think that many of them will view this as what it is: a rare and isolated incident. Under Hussein, they were commonplace and SOP.


You are dellusional. One instance by an occupying force is equal to many by their own ilk. That is why every single incident like this, even if remote, further complicates the stated objective of 'WHAM.'

Cochise
06-30-2006, 02:05 PM
Unfortunately, in this war, too many people believe in an eye for an eye...


Weasel words are words that are intended to, or have the effect of, softening the force of a loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. The name is derived from the weasel's ability to suck the contents out of an egg without breaking the shell; thus, weasel words suck the meaning out of a statement while seeming to keep the idea intact. Generalization by means of grammatical qualifiers helps the speaker or writer disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what he has or suggested. (i.e., "People say", "It has been said", "It turns out that")

This sort of semantic cop-out is considered unacceptable in standard writing. It is often seen represented by the word 'allegedly'. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts doubt on the opinion being articulated due to the speaker's unwillingness to be responsible for the statements made.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:05 PM
BTW, who else would have bet that mememe was going to post this? I saw it earlier today and said to myself, "Boy, this one's got mememe all over it."

I bet you saw it and hoped no one else did. :shake:

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 02:07 PM
No, they will have a trial to determine their legal guilt. However, as I understand it if you confess you are admitting guilt. Do you have a different understanding of a confession?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confession

con·fes·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-fshn)
n.
The act or process of confessing.
Something confessed, especially disclosure of one's sins to a priest for absolution.
A written or oral statement acknowledging guilt, made by one who has been accused or charged with an offense.

Did the soldier confide to you and confess? Or are you taking the unamed US Official's word for it.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that stories like this have turned out to be false before.

You just seem like you want it to be true.

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 02:08 PM
You are dellusional. One instance by an occupying force is equal to many by their own ilk. That is why every single incident like this, even if remote, further complicates the stated objective of 'WHAM.'

There it is again.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:09 PM
You are dellusional. One instance by an occupying force is equal to many by their own ilk. That is why every single incident like this, even if remote, further complicates the stated objective of 'WHAM.'

Whose “delusional”? Are you claim’n that Iraqis have not noticed that we aren’t kidnap’n the daughters of tribal leaders, rape’n then kill’n them as intimidation? :spock:

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:09 PM
Weasel words are words that are intended to,

CLASSIC deflection. :clap:

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:09 PM
You just seem like you want it to be true.

:hmmm:

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:11 PM
You are dellusional. One instance by an occupying force is equal to many by their own ilk. That is why every single incident like this, even if remote, further complicates the stated objective of 'WHAM.'

No, that's just what you hope is the case.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:11 PM
Did the soldier confide to you and confess? Or are you taking the unamed US Official's word for it.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that stories like this have turned out to be false before.

You just seem like you want it to be true.

I don't want it to be true because two mothers lost their sons not because of them being soldiers in a firefight and part of the war but because they were kidnapped and murdered as retribution for some other soldier(s) committing rape and murder.

I mean I guess this entire war has the unintended consequence of uninvolved people paying with their lives for some one else's actions...

but in this case it is all so senseless and barbaric. And here we were thinking the barbarism was coming from their side only. :shake:

Cochise
06-30-2006, 02:12 PM
CLASSIC deflection. :clap:

ROFL

Everyone who's ever visited this board knows what you think about this story. You post it and leave your crocodile tears all over the thread starter while subtly implying that they deserved it or provoked it somehow. I wouldn't even put it out of play that the news made your morning, because now it's something else you can blame on the military, and you can come here to post a thread about how you really can't blame the insurgents for doing it, and it's our own fault.

I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I assure you that your act stopped working on anyone a long time ago.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:14 PM
I don't want it to be true because two mothers lost their sons not because of them being soldiers in a firefight and part of the war but because they were kidnapped and murdered as retribution for some other soldier(s) committing rape and murder.

I mean I guess this entire war has the unintended consequence of uninvolved people paying with their lives for some one else's actions...

but in this case it is all so senseless and barbaric. And here we were thinking the barbarism was coming from their side only. :shake:

There it is again.

:rolleyes:

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:14 PM
And here we were thinking the barbarism was coming from their side only. :shake:

And if convicted, the guys that allegedly did this will be punished severely.

Tell me, what is the punishment for 'freedom fighters' cutting off the heads of their victims?

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:16 PM
ROFL

Everyone who's ever visited this board knows what you think about this story. You post it and leave your crocodile tears all over the thread starter while subtly implying that they deserved it or provoked it somehow. I wouldn't even put it out of play that the news made your morning, because now it's something else you can blame on the military, and you can come here to post a thread about how you really can't blame the insurgents for doing it, and it's our own fault.

I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I assure you that your act stopped working on anyone a long time ago.

The two soliders who were murdered DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES...

I certainly would have a hard time crying for the soldiers who (allegedly) did this if it were they who had suffered the same fate if they did infact do what is alleged.

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 02:16 PM
I don't want it to be true because two mothers lost their sons not because of them being soldiers in a firefight and part of the war but because they were kidnapped and murdered as retribution for some other soldier(s) committing rape and murder.

I mean I guess this entire war has the unintended consequence of uninvolved people paying with their lives for some one else's actions...

but in this case it is all so senseless and barbaric. And here we were thinking the barbarism was coming from their side only. :shake:

Anyone that assumes guilt in a story like this until the soldier/s have had their day in court doesn't support the troops in the first place.

It's as simple as that. :shake:

It very possibly could have happened. Your presumption of guilt baffles me.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:17 PM
And if convicted, the guys that allegedly did this will be punished severely.

Tell me, what is the punishment for 'freedom fighters' cutting off the heads of their victims?

Let them die a grisly death too for all I care...

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:17 PM
Tell me, what is the punishment for 'freedom fighters' cutting off the heads of their victims?

Or raping Iraqi women, or kill’n families, or…..oh never mind.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:18 PM
Anyone that assumes guilt in a story like this until the soldier/s have had their day in court doesn't support the troops in the first place.

It's as simple as that. :shake:

It very possibly could have happened. Your presumption of guilt baffles me.

The only person I'm going to believe is guilty is the one who says he's involved. But you would be a FOOL if you did not think he's rollin on the others to avoid the death penalty...

not to mention the two others who are uninvolved but originally approached their superiors after the murders of the two uninvolved soldiers. You think they didn't see the pitfalls of rollin on their comrades?

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 02:20 PM
The only person I'm going to believe is guilty is the one who says he's involved. But you would be a FOOL if you did not think he's rollin on the others to avoid the death penalty...

I choose not to look like a fool until the facts become official.

Chief Henry
06-30-2006, 02:21 PM
Nuke the whole f u c k e n place and let God or Allah or what ever COW they beleave in start over with that shit hole infested place.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:22 PM
I choose not to look like a fool until the facts become official.

The facts may never become 'official.' All they might have is the word of the confessor and the military witnesses vs. the accused. Anyone else will be summarily discounted...

the fact that they have their own talking is telling.

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:24 PM
Let them die a grisly death too for all I care...

You miss the point.

You are trying to say, if I'm reading you correctly, that the Iraqi people view these incidents that involve out troops in a worse light than when they happened under Hussein.

I diagree, because they will be punished if convicted. Under Hussein, such acts were not only not punished, but rather encouraged and promoted.

Cochise
06-30-2006, 02:25 PM
The two soliders [died] FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CRIMES...


Oh, we know. Like you weaseled before, it's the military's fault, you can't blame the insurgents for the murder and torture that ensued. The insurgents were just meting out due justice, right?

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:25 PM
You miss the point.

You are trying to say, if I'm reading you correctly, that the Iraqi people view these incidents that involve out troops in a worse light than when they happened under Hussein.

I diagree, because they will be punished if convicted. Under Hussein, such acts were not only not punished, but rather encouraged and promoted.

Well unless the punishment happens before some other outrageous event happens then it ain't gonna matter much...

because at this point these stories are starting to go from an occasional drop to a slow drip.

Chief Henry
06-30-2006, 02:27 PM
How many rapes and beheadings did Saddam and his sons perform on innocent women and children
I the middl east? Hundreds perhaps THOUSANDS.

Cochise
06-30-2006, 02:28 PM
Well unless the punishment happens before...

Yes, we know... it's not murder, it's not barbarism, it's not terrorism... it's punishment.

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:30 PM
Well unless the punishment happens before some other outrageous event happens then it ain't gonna matter much...

because at this point these stories are starting to go from an occasional drop to a slow drip.

Really? Is that what you hope is happening or do you have some evidence to support that conclusion?

If the latter, present it.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 02:30 PM
The facts may never become 'official.' All they might have is the word of the confessor and the military witnesses vs. the accused. Anyone else will be summarily discounted...

the fact that they have their own talking is telling.

If your article with quotes from unnamed sources is accurate.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:31 PM
Oh, we know. Like you weaseled before, it's the military's fault, you can't blame the insurgents for the murder and torture that ensued. The insurgents were just meting out due justice, right?

Are you incapable of reading or just a moron? I've said numerous times it's not the soldiers who died fault. You can blame AQ because it was they, not the insurgents, who stated they were responsible for the murder of the soldiers.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:34 PM
Really? Is that what you hope is happening or do you have some evidence to support that conclusion?

If the latter, present it.


Here is a list of pending cases, convictions, aquittals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5922718,00.html

Criminal Cases Against U.S. Soldiers

Friday June 30, 2006 8:01 PM

By The Associated Press

A look at criminal cases against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis since the war began in 2003:

PENDING CASES:

-Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, Spc. Juston R. Graber, Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard and Spc. William B. Hunsaker charged with premeditated murder of three male detainees in Salahuddin province in May. Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also charged with obstructing justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier who was a witness in the case.

-Hospitalman Third Class Melson J. Bacos; Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III; Lance Cpl. Tyler A. Jackson; Pfc. John J. Jodka; Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda; Lance Cpl. Robert B. Pennington; Lance Cpl. Jerry E. Shumate Jr.; and Marine Cpl. Trent D. Thomas charged with premeditated murder in April shooting death of Iraqi man in Hamdania. All eight also charged with kidnapping, larceny, conspiracy, assault and housebreaking.

-Five U.S. Army soldiers from 502nd Infantry Regiment being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman in March, then killing her and three members of her family in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad, a U.S. military official tells The Associated Press.

-National Guard Sgt. Milton Ortiz Jr. and Spc. Nathan B. Lynn charged in shooting death of unarmed Iraqi man near Ramadi in February. Both also charged with obstructing justice. Lynn charged with voluntary manslaughter. Ortiz also faces charges of assault and communicating a threat in separate incident involving another Iraqi man.

-Capt. James Kimber, Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich and an unidentified Marine under investigation for killings of two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians in western town of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005 in revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing. Probe focusing on allegations that the Marines stormed into nearby homes and shot occupants as well as others outside, according to U.S. lawmakers briefed by military officials. Separately, the military also investigating if there was a coverup. Iraqi government said it will also investigate.

-Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson L. Williams, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer and Spc. Jerry Loper charged with murder and dereliction of duty, along with Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, an incident in resulting in death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush after an interrogation in 2003 at a detention camp in al Qaim. Army dropped murder charges against Williams and Loper in exchange for testimony against Welshofer. Murder charge against Sommer also dropped. Both Sommer and Williams face possible administrative discipline.

CONVICTIONS:

-Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban convicted of killing severely wounded 16-year-old Iraqi during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. Sentenced to one year's confinement, demoted to private and given bad-conduct discharge.

-Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne Jr. pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder in same case as Alban. Sentenced to three years in prison, had rank reduced to private, forfeited wages and given dishonorable discharge. Horne's prison sentence later reduced to one year.

-Cpl. Dustin Berg of Indiana National Guard convicted and sentenced to 18 months in military prison for shooting death of Iraqi police officer.

-Spc. Rami Dajani convicted of making a false statement following fatal shooting of Iraqi translator. Sentenced to 18 months' confinement and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge.

-Spc. Charley L. Hooser convicted of involuntary manslaughter in same case involving Dajani. Hooser sentenced to three years in prison and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge. Also convicted of making a false statement to investigators.

-Capt. Rogelio ``Roger'' Maynulet convicted of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in shooting death of wounded Iraqi. Received no prison time but was dismissed from armed forces.

-Pvt. Federico Daniel Merida of North Carolina National Guard pleaded guilty to killing 17-year-old Iraqi soldier after the two had consensual sex. Sentenced to 25 years in prison, given a reduction in rank and was dishonorably discharged.

-Marine Maj. Clarke Paulus convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment in case stemming from death of Iraqi prisoner who was dragged out of holding cell by the neck, stripped naked and left outside for seven hours in June 2003. Paulus, who commanded the Marine detention facility Camp Whitehorse in southern Iraq, was dismissed from the service but received no prison time.

-Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in alleged drowning of Iraqi man but convicted of assault for forcing the man and his cousin into Tigris River. Sentenced to six months in prison.

-1st Lt. Jack Saville pleaded guilty to assault and other crimes in same incident as Perkins. Sentenced to 45 days in military prison.

-Pfc. Edward Richmond convicted of voluntary manslaughter for shooting Iraqi in back of head. Received three years in prison.

-Sgt. Michael P. Williams convicted in court-martial of one count of premeditated murder and one count of unpremeditated murder in deaths of unarmed civilians during operations near Sadr City. Sentenced to life in prison and given a reduction in rank. Sentence later reduced to 25 years.

-Spc. Brent May convicted in court-martial of one count of unpremeditated murder in same incident as Michael Williams. Sentenced to five years in prison.

-Welshofer, of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, initially charged with murder, assault and willful dereliction of duty but found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty in death of Mowhoush. Military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 of his salary and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.

CLEARED/ACQUITTED:

-U.S. troops cleared of intentionally killing civilians in March 15 raid in village of Ishaqi. Military acknowledged ``possibly up to nine collateral deaths'' in addition to four announced at time of the raid. Iraqis said there were 11 dead.

-Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano cleared of murder charges in shooting deaths of two Iraqi civilians.

-Staff Sgt. Shane Werst acquitted by jury of premeditated murder for shooting death of unarmed Iraqi

Donger
06-30-2006, 02:48 PM
Here is a list of pending cases, convictions, aquittals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0Hello - commatard on the loose.-5922718,00.html

Criminal Cases Against U.S. Soldiers

Friday June 30, 2006 8:01 PM

By The Associated Press

A look at criminal cases against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis since the war began in 2003:

PENDING CASES:

-Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, Spc. Juston R. Graber, Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard and Spc. William B. Hunsaker charged with premeditated murder of three male detainees in Salahuddin province in May. Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also charged with obstructing justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier who was a witness in the case.

-Hospitalman Third Class Melson J. Bacos; Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III; Lance Cpl. Tyler A. Jackson; Pfc. John J. Jodka; Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda; Lance Cpl. Robert B. Pennington; Lance Cpl. Jerry E. Shumate Jr.; and Marine Cpl. Trent D. Thomas charged with premeditated murder in April shooting death of Iraqi man in Hamdania. All eight also charged with kidnapping, larceny, conspiracy, assault and housebreaking.

-Five U.S. Army soldiers from 502nd Infantry Regiment being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman in March, then killing her and three members of her family in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad, a U.S. military official tells The Associated Press.

-National Guard Sgt. Milton Ortiz Jr. and Spc. Nathan B. Lynn charged in shooting death of unarmed Iraqi man near Ramadi in February. Both also charged with obstructing justice. Lynn charged with voluntary manslaughter. Ortiz also faces charges of assault and communicating a threat in separate incident involving another Iraqi man.

-Capt. James Kimber, Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich and an unidentified Marine under investigation for killings of two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians in western town of Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005 in revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing. Probe focusing on allegations that the Marines stormed into nearby homes and shot occupants as well as others outside, according to U.S. lawmakers briefed by military officials. Separately, the military also investigating if there was a coverup. Iraqi government said it will also investigate.

-Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson L. Williams, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer and Spc. Jerry Loper charged with murder and dereliction of duty, along with Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, an incident in resulting in death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush after an interrogation in 2003 at a detention camp in al Qaim. Army dropped murder charges against Williams and Loper in exchange for testimony against Welshofer. Murder charge against Sommer also dropped. Both Sommer and Williams face possible administrative discipline.

CONVICTIONS:

-Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban convicted of killing severely wounded 16-year-old Iraqi during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. Sentenced to one year's confinement, demoted to private and given bad-conduct discharge.

-Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne Jr. pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder in same case as Alban. Sentenced to three years in prison, had rank reduced to private, forfeited wages and given dishonorable discharge. Horne's prison sentence later reduced to one year.

-Cpl. Dustin Berg of Indiana National Guard convicted and sentenced to 18 months in military prison for shooting death of Iraqi police officer.

-Spc. Rami Dajani convicted of making a false statement following fatal shooting of Iraqi translator. Sentenced to 18 months' confinement and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge.

-Spc. Charley L. Hooser convicted of involuntary manslaughter in same case involving Dajani. Hooser sentenced to three years in prison and given a reduction in rank and bad conduct discharge. Also convicted of making a false statement to investigators.

-Capt. Rogelio ``Roger'' Maynulet convicted of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in shooting death of wounded Iraqi. Received no prison time but was dismissed from armed forces.

-Pvt. Federico Daniel Merida of North Carolina National Guard pleaded guilty to killing 17-year-old Iraqi soldier after the two had consensual sex. Sentenced to 25 years in prison, given a reduction in rank and was dishonorably discharged.

-Marine Maj. Clarke Paulus convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment in case stemming from death of Iraqi prisoner who was dragged out of holding cell by the neck, stripped naked and left outside for seven hours in June 2003. Paulus, who commanded the Marine detention facility Camp Whitehorse in southern Iraq, was dismissed from the service but received no prison time.

-Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in alleged drowning of Iraqi man but convicted of assault for forcing the man and his cousin into Tigris River. Sentenced to six months in prison.

-1st Lt. Jack Saville pleaded guilty to assault and other crimes in same incident as Perkins. Sentenced to 45 days in military prison.

-Pfc. Edward Richmond convicted of voluntary manslaughter for shooting Iraqi in back of head. Received three years in prison.

-Sgt. Michael P. Williams convicted in court-martial of one count of premeditated murder and one count of unpremeditated murder in deaths of unarmed civilians during operations near Sadr City. Sentenced to life in prison and given a reduction in rank. Sentence later reduced to 25 years.

-Spc. Brent May convicted in court-martial of one count of unpremeditated murder in same incident as Michael Williams. Sentenced to five years in prison.

-Welshofer, of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, initially charged with murder, assault and willful dereliction of duty but found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty in death of Mowhoush. Military jury ordered a reprimand and forfeiture of $6,000 of his salary and restricted him to his home, office and church for two months.

CLEARED/ACQUITTED:

-U.S. troops cleared of intentionally killing civilians in March 15 raid in village of Ishaqi. Military acknowledged ``possibly up to nine collateral deaths'' in addition to four announced at time of the raid. Iraqis said there were 11 dead.

-Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano cleared of murder charges in shooting deaths of two Iraqi civilians.

-Staff Sgt. Shane Werst acquitted by jury of premeditated murder for shooting death of unarmed Iraqi


Interesting. Why did you edit your original post, where you mentioned the three events coming to light this month?

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 02:59 PM
FTR, the story is now the lead story on Military.com. Including this passage:

However, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,103799,00.html

I have a hard time believing they'd post the story on their page, front and center, if they didn't want to get out ahead of the story.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 03:00 PM
Interesting. Why did you edit your original post, where you mentioned the three events coming to light this month?

Because I had no dates or specifics and this list did. I thought it was better suited to your request than my recollection of unspecific information.

Here is another list of incidents some of which are not mentioned in the previous list:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30641070.htm

CHRONOLOGY-U.S. troops and civilian complaints in Iraq
30 Jun 2006 17:09:01 GMT
Source: Reuters

June 30 (Reuters) - Here are some incidents that have made headlines about U.S. forces' treatment of civilians in Iraq:

April 28, 2003 - Troops of the 82nd Airborne Division open fire during a protest in the Sunni town of Falluja. Officers said they fired on two gunmen and said up to 10 people were killed. Doctors put the casualty toll at 13 dead and 75 wounded.

Jan. 3, 2004 - Zaidoun Faleh Hassoun believed drowned after U.S. soldiers pushed two men into the Tigris River at Samarra. Two soldiers were sentenced to up to six months for assault.

April 28 - U.S. television shows photographs of U.S. troops abusing detainees in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison. Several were jailed. Some cases go on. Commanders deny ordering torture.

May 19 - About 40 people killed in U.S. air strike on desert encampment at Mogr al-Deeb. Denying local accounts that the dead were innocently celebrating a wedding, U.S. military insists most were foreign Arab militants: "Bad people have parties too."

Sept. 12 - U.S. helicopter rockets kill at least five people including a television journalist in a crowd around a crippled U.S. vehicle in Baghdad. U.S. military changes justification for firing, eventually saying pilots were responding to gunshots.

Nov. 13 - Unnamed corporal from 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment filmed shooting apparently unarmed, wounded man in a Falluja mosque. Commanders ruled he could have "reasonably believed" the man and two others he shot were hostile.

March 4, 2005 - U.S. soldiers at checkpoint kill Italian agent Nicola Calipari as he escorts freed hostage Italian journalist to Baghdad airport. Troops cleared of any wrongdoing.

Oct. 16 - Iraqi officials in Ramadi say about 20 civilians, including children, killed near wreck of U.S. vehicle. Military says 20 militants killed when jet bombs men planting explosives.

Nov. 19 - Twenty-four Iraqis shot dead at Haditha. Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment first say 15 civilians killed by roadside bomb that killed a Marine and that they shot eight guerrillas. U.S. investigators now say 24 men, women and children were shot. Charges expected to be brought.

Feb. 15, 2006 - Soldier shoots man near U.S. base in Ramadi. He is charged in June with voluntary manslaughter. He and a second soldier are also charged with obstruction of justice.

March 12 - A family of four Iraqi civilians are killed in their home in the area of Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad. The U.S. launches a probe in late June into allegations that U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman and then killed her and three members of her family, including a child.

March 15 - Police say six adults and five children shot dead in U.S. raid on home in Ishaqi, north of Baghdad. The 101st Airborne Division initially says two women and a child died during arrest of al Qaeda militant. Military later says up to nine civilians killed but clears troops of any wrongdoing.

March 18 - Iraqi police say U.S. soldiers ambushed on patrol in the Sunni town of Dhuluiya killed eight people, including a 13-year-old boy and his parents in their home. The 101st Airborne says troops killed seven "attacking terrorists".

April 26 - A disabled man is shot in the face in the village of Hamdania. Seven marines and a navy medic are later charged with premeditated murder, accused of planting a rifle and a shovel by body to make it appear he was placing a roadside bomb.

May 4 - 101st Airborne says troops kill two men and a woman involved in firing from house in Samarra. Police name two women and a mentally handicapped man and say they were unarmed.

May 9 - Three detainees shot dead during U.S. raid on a suspected insurgent camp at Thar Thar Lake north of Baghdad. Four soldiers later charged with premeditated murder.

Donger
06-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Because I had no dates or specifics and this list did. I thought it was better suited to your request than my recollection of unspecific information.

I don't see how this list proves your assertion.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 05:39 PM
:hmmm:, one of the soldiers being investigated was previously dishonorably discharged (something unrelated to the rape/murder allegation) and returned to the US, whereabouts unknown.

SBK
06-30-2006, 06:53 PM
I love these threads. Comedy gold.

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 07:57 PM
The facts may never become 'official.' All they might have is the word of the confessor and the military witnesses vs. the accused. Anyone else will be summarily discounted...

the fact that they have their own talking is telling.

Just admit it, you don't support the troops. You've already found these guys guilty before their day in court.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 07:59 PM
Just admit it, you don't support the troops. You've already found these guys guilty before their day in court.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Untrue. I don't 'support' rape and murder no matter who's doing it...

sorry to see that you do. :shake:

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 08:07 PM
Untrue. I don't 'support' rape and murder no matter who's doing it...

sorry to see that you do. :shake:

There it is again.

When one of the soldiers in question is found guilty get back to me.

Until then he's not. And I'll support him and not afraid to say so. That's what people that support the troops do.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 08:12 PM
Denise only "supports" the troops till they cross the line, because she knows exactly how everyone reacts to the horrors of War.

People can can barely handle being in charge of incarcerated individuals on a study level without being affected in a negative manner.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 08:43 PM
There it is again.

When one of the soldiers in question is found guilty get back to me.

Until then he's not. And I'll support him and not afraid to say so. That's what people that support the troops do.

So even if one has confessed you'll support him until he's 'found guilty'???

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 09:20 PM
So even if one has confessed you'll support him until he's 'found guilty'???

You ran with a story that a reporter named some guy saying he had confessed.

That was good enough for you. Like I said, I don't doubt it happened but your presumption of guilt proves your motives.

memyselfI
06-30-2006, 09:32 PM
You ran with a story that a reporter named some guy saying he had confessed.

That was good enough for you. Like I said, I don't doubt it happened but your presumption of guilt proves your motives.


Nice attempt at diverting from the question and failing to answer it...

FTR, Military.com had an article on their website with the paragraph about the confession that did not appear in the article that I originally posted.

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.military.com/NewsContent...,103799,00.html

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 07:17 AM
So even if one has confessed you'll support him until he's 'found guilty'???

Military.com has another story on the alleged incident including the following headline front and center of their home page.

Soldier Admits Role in Attack

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,103881,00.html

go bowe
07-01-2006, 12:37 PM
everybody knows that military.com is not a credible source...

go bowe
07-01-2006, 12:38 PM
communist rag...

go bowe
07-01-2006, 12:39 PM
socialist propaganda...

go bowe
07-01-2006, 12:39 PM
left wind nut job fluff...

banyon
07-01-2006, 12:49 PM
So even if one has confessed you'll support him until he's 'found guilty'???

Yes. In our country one is innocent until proven guilty.

confession ≠ verdict


for a variety of reasons. Unless you are looking to prosecute these soldiers yourself...

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 01:16 PM
Yes. In our country one is innocent until proven guilty.

confession ≠ verdict


for a variety of reasons. Unless you are looking to prosecute these soldiers yourself...

Actually, in our country one is considered LEGALLY innocent until proven legally guilty in a legal process. The lack of proving guilt does not mean that a crime did not happen or that an individual is not guilty of a crime it simply means that the legal means and measures were not satisfied or met to prove them guilty in a legal proceeding.

If you do not understand the difference see OJ Simpson...

banyon
07-01-2006, 01:20 PM
Actually, in our country one is considered LEGALLY innocent until proven legally guilty in a legal process. The lack of proving guilt does not mean that a crime did not happen or that one is not guilty of a crime it simply means that the legal means and measures were not satisfied or met to prove them guilty in a legal proceeding.


The law isn't what I was referring to. It is the spirit embodied in that law.

It is an ideal to which we hold our society. To engender its opposite is to ask for such laws/Constitutional protections to be repealed eventually.

If you do not understand the difference see OJ Simpson...

No need to be all snippy about it.

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 01:43 PM
The law isn't what I was referring to. It is the spirit embodied in that law.

It is an ideal to which we hold our society. To engender its opposite is to ask for such laws/Constitutional protections to be repealed eventually.



No need to be all snippy about it.

No one is asking for a repeal of anything. I think most people understand there is the court of law and then the court of public opinion. One needs a ton of evidence and a jury and is structured by rules and regulations. The other is simply based on perception. One we are required to abide by as Americans who value democracy. The other is entirely subjective.

Both can ruin your life if you are on the wrong side...

mlyonsd
07-01-2006, 05:21 PM
So even if one has confessed you'll support him until he's 'found guilty'???

Yes, because he's a member of the military and working in a combat zone I'll support him until all the facts are out and he's found guilty.

What you did was find him guilty at the very sniff of a story.

It's your MO. You say you support the troops but are looking for the worst in them so you can exploit their weaknesses for your political gain.

I refuse to do that and you shouldn't either. Of course you have the right, especially since the military is protecting your right to do so.

But it does make me form an opinion of you that I wish I could avoid.

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 07:25 PM
Yes, because he's a member of the military and working in a combat zone I'll support him until all the facts are out and he's found guilty.

What you did was find him guilty at the very sniff of a story.

It's your MO. You say you support the troops but are looking for the worst in them so you can exploit their weaknesses for your political gain.

I refuse to do that and you shouldn't either. Of course you have the right, especially since the military is protecting your right to do so.

But it does make me form an opinion of you that I wish I could avoid.

Blah, blah, blah.

The ONLY soldier I'm considering guilty is the one that is described in Military.com's lead story.

My God, are you considering Jessica Lunsford's killer innocent even though he admitted he's guilty and confessed???? If so, you are in luck as his confession won't be heard in court and you might even get your wish in that he'll be considered innocent because his confession will be thrown out. Imagine, a man like him innocent.

Somehow, I think your steadfast belief in a person's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty won't be extended to John Coey. And if you ask me, it SHOULD NOT BE. But if you don't want to be an A-1 hypocrite then you had better be giving both of these men the SAME B.O.D.

banyon
07-01-2006, 07:37 PM
are you unaware that confessions are sometimes obtained by mistake or coercion?

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 09:30 PM
Yep. I'm aware confessions are also made sometimes under duress...

and I'm also aware that confessions are sometimes retracted once an attorney gets involved.

In this instance if a confession was coerced or a mistake then it is the military doing it to their own. I can't see the benefit for anyone involved in that happening.

banyon
07-01-2006, 09:47 PM
Yep. I'm aware confessions are also made sometimes under duress...

and I'm also aware that confessions are sometimes retracted once an attorney gets involved.

In this instance if a confession was coerced or a mistake then it is the military doing it to their own. I can't see the benefit for anyone involved in that happening.

Utilize your imagination.

What if he was covering up for someone else? Or (let's hope to Jesus not) acting on orders.

That's why everyone gets a trial. Even enemy terrorist POS's.

memyselfI
07-01-2006, 10:01 PM
Utilize your imagination.

What if he was covering up for someone else? Or (let's hope to Jesus not) acting on orders.

That's why everyone gets a trial. Even enemy terrorist POS's.

If he was covering up for someone else then there remains at least one un-named guilty party and worse he's an accessory to their crime in a coverup.

If he was following illegal orders to rape and murder then I understand he's guilty according to all sorts of laws, military or otherwise. The 'following orders' defense don't fly.

banyon
07-01-2006, 11:04 PM
If he was covering up for someone else then there remains at least one un-named guilty party and worse he's an accessory to their crime in a coverup.

If he was following illegal orders to rape and murder then I understand he's guilty according to all sorts of laws, military or otherwise. The 'following orders' defense don't fly.

I know I'm dealing in possiblities of a small probability by an order of magnitude or so, but it's also possible that he was coerced into being an accesory. Perhaps his family is being held hostage.

Or the evidence could be entirely contirved in order to frame him. Newspapers have gotten stories wrong before. Also, the limited feed that we get from Iraq is probably more manufactured and controlled than any news in our history.

Again, these are highly unlikely, but possible scenarios. mlyonsd is correct that the soldier should be given the benefit of a trial in a situation like this.

Jesus
07-01-2006, 11:05 PM
Utilize your imagination.

What if he was covering up for someone else? Or (let's hope to Jesus not) acting on orders.

That's why everyone gets a trial. Even enemy terrorist POS's.

I can't help you here. Blame that Mohammed bastard.

memyselfI
07-02-2006, 09:32 AM
I know I'm dealing in possibilities of a small probability by an order of magnitude or so, but it's also possible that he was coerced into being an accessory. Perhaps his family is being held hostage.

Or the evidence could be entirely contrived in order to frame him. Newspapers have gotten stories wrong before. Also, the limited feed that we get from Iraq is probably more manufactured and controlled than any news in our history.

Again, these are highly unlikely, but possible scenarios. mlyonsd is correct that the soldier should be given the benefit of a trial in a situation like this.

Yes, newspapers have gotten the story wrong before. Need I remind you the announcement of this investigation came FROM the military. But I digress, the newspapers have reported what turned out to be propaganda and not the truth in stories like Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. So yes, your point that a remote possibility is that the military fed this story to the newspapers knowing full well it was untrue for the means of promoting the military version of events. :hmmm:

If the military IS manufacturing the story I guess statements like this one should be considered with the utmost suspicion:

"We can't undo anything that has happened, but we can and will hold accountable anybody found guilty of offenses," military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said in an e-mail.

"Before that happens, we must be given time to conduct a thorough investigation into the facts of what occurred," he said. "The rule of law will prevail in this incident."

As far as your tin foil theories about why one would confess in this situation. I thought we were fighting the terrorists 'there so we do not have to fight them here?' And yet, the terrorists could have the confessors family as hostage? Or worse, the military is forcing it's own people to admit to guilt in something they did not do? Even if that guilt would mean the death penalty?

Hey, I can understand your desire to believe in the innocence of someone who's confessed to a crime. And your belief that their confession means they are innocent unless found guilty by a legal proceeding, but let's not get carried away with outrageous scenarios trying to justify your principle. After all, the John Coey's of the world need people like yourself in order to get a fair trial even if they've confessed and are guilty as sin.

banyon
07-02-2006, 10:41 AM
As far as your tin foil theories about why one would confess in this situation.

did you neglect to read this disclaimer:

I know I'm dealing in possibilities of a small probability by an order of magnitude or so,

so your dismissal as "tin foil theories" is wholly unwarranted

I thought we were fighting the terrorists 'there so we do not have to fight them here?'

Have you ever read any of my posts? I don't believe I have ever uttered that nonsense. You are confusing me with someone who supports Bush's War.


And yet, the terrorists could have the confessors family as hostage? Or worse, the military is forcing it's own people to admit to guilt in something they did not do? Even if that guilt would mean the death penalty?

Yes they are possibilities.

Hey, I can understand your desire to believe in the innocence of someone who's confessed to a crime. And your belief that their confession means they are innocent unless found guilty by a legal proceeding, but let's not get carried away with outrageous scenarios trying to justify your principle. After all, the John Coey's of the world need people like yourself in order to get a fair trial even if they've confessed and are guilty as sin.

Well, I guess he needs people like you to prosecute him then. The point is that your analogizing this incident with a domestic rape or murder case is inappropriate. Our soldiers, who have often been placed into precarious and often morally unclear hazardous scenarios should be given more of a benefit of the doubt that we should not presume their guilt ahead of time. A regular POS rapist usually does not have such moral complications.

memyselfI
07-02-2006, 03:58 PM
did


Well, I guess he needs people like you to prosecute him then. The point is that your analogizing this incident with a domestic rape or murder case is inappropriate. Our soldiers, who have often been placed into precarious and often morally unclear hazardous scenarios should be given more of a benefit of the doubt that we should not presume their guilt ahead of time. A regular POS rapist usually does not have such moral complications.

I don't 'need' to prosecute him. I simply wish to grant him his wish of being considered guilty because he's admitted he is. If he didn't wish to be considered guilty then he'd maintain his innocence especially if he's NOT guilty.

As far as an analogy of the two situations, Couey and the alleged soldier incident, mentioning Coey was not to make a comparison of the two crimes or criminals but to point out that the principle of 'innocent until proven not guilty' is NOT a principle if it is applied in only certain circumstances and to certain people. You are making it quite subjective based on circumstance...

WHICH IS MY POINT. You are OTOH claiming a higher moral and ethical pretense of granting one person the BOTD based on the principle of 'IUPG' and simultaneously denying the same to a person you find less worthy of the same principle. Basically you are also using the two different courts to judge the two different people. One you are maintaining is deserving of the princple until judged by a court. In the other, you have joined the court of public opinion and accepted Coey's admitted guilt.

In other words, you are applying a subjective interpretation to the principle based on your feeling about each person...as such the principle of 'IUPG' doesn't exist except as you wish to apply it. It's not absolute and like most other people you also choose to apply it in a subjective fashion...

Great. Just don't look down your nose at others doing the same subjective analysis. In my view, someone that is a homeless lifetime criminal who rapes and murders ONE child and buries her alive to cover his azz is no less reprehensible than a man in a foreign land using his uniform or stature to rape and murder a woman, her family including a child, and then burning her dead body in order to cover his azz.

It seems you are willing to give the more heinous crime the greater BOD because of the uniform. That is your subjective choice. Just are others who feel that because of that uniform the crime is MORE horrific. Why? Because of the responsiblity and principles that uniform represents. You don't expect much of homeless lifetime criminals. You certainly should expect more from trained soldier(s)representing our country on foreign land.

Again, the only reason to bring up Couey was to point out the inconsistency in the so called 'innocent until proven guilty' principle being applied by some here.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 04:23 PM
I don't 'need' to prosecute him. I simply wish to grant him his wish of being considered guilty because he's admitted he is. If he didn't wish to be considered guilty then he'd maintain his innocence especially if he's NOT guilty.

As far as an analogy of the two situations, Couey and the alleged soldier incident, mentioning Coey was not to make a comparison of the two crimes or criminals but to point out that the principle of 'innocent until proven not guilty' is NOT a principle if it is applied in only certain circumstances and to certain people. You are making it quite subjective based on circumstance...

WHICH IS MY POINT. You are OTOH claiming a higher moral and ethical pretense of granting one person the BOTD based on the principle of 'IUPG' and simultaneously denying the same to a person you find less worthy of the same principle. Basically you are also using the two different courts to judge the two different people. One you are maintaining is deserving of the princple until judged by a court. In the other, you have joined the court of public opinion and accepted Coey's admitted guilt.

In other words, you are applying a subjective interpretation to the principle based on your feeling about each person...as such the principle of 'IUPG' doesn't exist except as you wish to apply it. It's not absolute and like most other people you also choose to apply it in a subjective fashion...

Great. Just don't look down your nose at others doing the same subjective analysis. In my view, someone that is a homeless lifetime criminal who rapes and murders ONE child and buries her alive to cover his azz is no less reprehensible than a man in a foreign land using his uniform or stature to rape and murder a woman, her family including a child, and then burning her dead body in order to cover his azz.

It seems you are willing to give the more heinous crime the greater BOD because of the uniform. That is your subjective choice. Just are others who feel that because of that uniform the crime is MORE horrific. Why? Because of the responsiblity and principles that uniform represents. You don't expect much of homeless lifetime criminals. You certainly should expect more from trained soldier(s)representing our country on foreign land.

Again, the only reason to bring up Couey was to point out the inconsistency in the so called 'innocent until proven guilty' principle being applied by some here.

He didn't say it was because of the uniform. He specifically listed a couple of characteristics that create the reason for the BOD.

memyselfI
07-02-2006, 04:31 PM
He didn't say it was because of the uniform. He specifically listed a couple of characteristics that create the reason for the BOD.

No, he didn't say it, I did. :rolleyes:

patteeu
07-02-2006, 07:29 PM
No, he didn't say it, I did. :rolleyes:

Here are the "characteristics" I'm talking about:

...who have often been placed into precarious and often morally unclear hazardous scenarios...

mlyonsd
07-02-2006, 08:21 PM
Blah, blah, blah.

The ONLY soldier I'm considering guilty is the one that is described in Military.com's lead story.

My God, are you considering Jessica Lunsford's killer innocent even though he admitted he's guilty and confessed???? If so, you are in luck as his confession won't be heard in court and you might even get your wish in that he'll be considered innocent because his confession will be thrown out. Imagine, a man like him innocent.

Somehow, I think your steadfast belief in a person's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty won't be extended to John Coey. And if you ask me, it SHOULD NOT BE. But if you don't want to be an A-1 hypocrite then you had better be giving both of these men the SAME B.O.D.

We've argued for several years now and while I know you to be a complete partisan I have always assumed your politics wouldn't cloud your judgement when being an American.

I'm afraid your posts on this thread have proven to me that you want this story to be true and won't give any of the soldiers the benefit of the doubt. You believed a story from an unamed source and ran with it like it was true.

You have gone over the line with me and I'm rather disgusted with your politics at the moment.

Even if these soldiers are guilty you don't deserve the protection they may have given you.

memyselfI
07-03-2006, 06:17 AM
We've argued for several years now and while I know you to be a complete partisan I have always assumed your politics wouldn't cloud your judgement when being an American.

I'm afraid your posts on this thread have proven to me that you want this story to be true and won't give any of the soldiers the benefit of the doubt. You believed a story from an unamed source and ran with it like it was true.

You have gone over the line with me and I'm rather disgusted with your politics at the moment.

Even if these soldiers are guilty you don't deserve the protection they may have given you.

Nice diversion yet AGAIN.

I said the only soldier I'm considering guilty is the one who has confessed. The one who has been talked about on Military.com. This story was announced by the US military. If there are any un-named sources it's because the military is not choosing to divulge their names while getting the story out there. The military announced the criminal investigation, NOT THE MEDIA. You cannot do the same old poo-poo of this story because it did not break with Time or Newsweek or the NY Times. It was the MILITARY.

I think your focus on the 'guilt' you maintain I'm applying to all in the situation and diverting from the question I've posed to YOU about 'innocent until proven guilty' being a concept you do not apply to ALL is spinless, not surprising, but REALLY spineless.

memyselfI
07-03-2006, 06:23 AM
Here are the "characteristics" I'm talking about:

Police are often put in the same prediciments. We would not condone their rape and murder of a person for one minute. If a cop confessed we'd believe he was guilty.

We'd also be fully aware that our belief, the court of public opinion, does not hold the same weight as a criminal court and in the eyes of the law he's not guilty until he's been processed through the legal system.

Same applies here.

mlyonsd
07-03-2006, 10:13 AM
Nice diversion yet AGAIN.

I said the only soldier I'm considering guilty is the one who has confessed. The one who has been talked about on Military.com. This story was announced by the US military. If there are any un-named sources it's because the military is not choosing to divulge their names while getting the story out there. The military announced the criminal investigation, NOT THE MEDIA. You cannot do the same old poo-poo of this story because it did not break with Time or Newsweek or the NY Times. It was the MILITARY.

I think your focus on the 'guilt' you maintain I'm applying to all in the situation and diverting from the question I've posed to YOU about 'innocent until proven guilty' being a concept you do not apply to ALL is spinless, not surprising, but REALLY spineless.

I thought I answered your question in post #68.

But you're the one deflecting. You ran with this story from the very first post assuming somebody was guilty.

You'll believe anything/anybody posts on the internet that reflects poorly on the troops. Without proof and without their day in court.

That missy, is not supporting them and rather disgusts me.

Iowanian
07-03-2006, 10:59 AM
Just go to Israel and lay down under a bulldozer already.

patteeu
07-03-2006, 12:22 PM
Police are often put in the same prediciments. We would not condone their rape and murder of a person for one minute. If a cop confessed we'd believe he was guilty.

We'd also be fully aware that our belief, the court of public opinion, does not hold the same weight as a criminal court and in the eyes of the law he's not guilty until he's been processed through the legal system.

Same applies here.

Police deserve the benefit of the doubt too for the same reasons. I'm not sure what part you refuse to understand.

Chief Henry
07-03-2006, 12:29 PM
Just go to Israel and lay down under a bulldozer already.


I left Friday early PM to go to a wedding and this thread was on the top. I come back Monday and this thread is still on the top.

This gunt uses alot of excuses to bash American soldiers.

vailpass
07-03-2006, 02:40 PM
I left Friday early PM to go to a wedding and this thread was on the top. I come back Monday and this thread is still on the top.

This gunt uses alot of excuses to bash American soldiers.

I guess not being able to attract an American husband has left her with some bitterness issues.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 05:36 PM
Bump.

memyselfI
07-10-2006, 07:48 PM
Looks like we have our answer... :shake:

Al-Qaeda video shows mutilated bodies of US soldiers
3 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060711/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusunresthostages

PARIS (AFP) - The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda put on the Internet a video showing the mutilated bodies of two US soldiers kidnapped in June and executed to "avenge" an Iraqi woman raped near Mahmudiyah south of Baghdad.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Here is a film on the remains of the bodies of the two American soldiers kidnapped near Yussufiyah (south of Baghdad). We are showing it to avenge our sister who was raped by a soldier belonging to the same division as these two soldiers," said a preamble by the Mujahedeen Al-Shura Council, an Al-Qaeda dominated alliance of armed Sunni groups in Iraq.

When guerrillas learned of the rape, "they repressed their sighs to avoid news of the affair spreading but they swore to avenge their sister," the council said on its usual website.

"Praise God, they captured two soldiers from the same division as this vile crusader. Here are the remains ... to rejoice the hearts of the faithful," the statement said.

A 15-year-old Iraqi girl was raped and murdered along with three other members of her family in mid-March near Mahmudiyah. A US soldier, Steven Green, stationed nearby at the time, was charged with rape and murder on July 3.

Green, who has left the army, pleaded not guilty last Thursday before a Louisville, Kentucky, court.

The nearly five-minute film shows the horribly mutilated bodies of the two soldiers, who had had their throats cut. The head of one of them was held high by an armed man, like a trophy. The head of the other was being stamped on by another armed man.

The film is accompanied by extracts of old speeches by the head of the Al-Qaeda terror group, Osama bin Laden, and the ex-head of its Iraqi wing Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was killed June 7 by the US Army.

The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda announced on June 20 it had executed the two American soldiers whose bodies were found south of Baghdad.

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2006, 08:36 PM
So, seriously....are you as passionate about the need to bring these "freedom fighters/insurgents" to justice... as you are about bringing the criminal American soldiers to justice, who allegedly committed dispicable acts?

:hmmm:Looks like we have our answer... :shake:

Al-Qaeda video shows mutilated bodies of US soldiers
3 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060711/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusunresthostages

PARIS (AFP) - The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda put on the Internet a video showing the mutilated bodies of two US soldiers kidnapped in June and executed to "avenge" an Iraqi woman raped near Mahmudiyah south of Baghdad.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Here is a film on the remains of the bodies of the two American soldiers kidnapped near Yussufiyah (south of Baghdad). We are showing it to avenge our sister who was raped by a soldier belonging to the same division as these two soldiers," said a preamble by the Mujahedeen Al-Shura Council, an Al-Qaeda dominated alliance of armed Sunni groups in Iraq.

When guerrillas learned of the rape, "they repressed their sighs to avoid news of the affair spreading but they swore to avenge their sister," the council said on its usual website.

"Praise God, they captured two soldiers from the same division as this vile crusader. Here are the remains ... to rejoice the hearts of the faithful," the statement said.

A 15-year-old Iraqi girl was raped and murdered along with three other members of her family in mid-March near Mahmudiyah. A US soldier, Steven Green, stationed nearby at the time, was charged with rape and murder on July 3.

Green, who has left the army, pleaded not guilty last Thursday before a Louisville, Kentucky, court.

The nearly five-minute film shows the horribly mutilated bodies of the two soldiers, who had had their throats cut. The head of one of them was held high by an armed man, like a trophy. The head of the other was being stamped on by another armed man.

The film is accompanied by extracts of old speeches by the head of the Al-Qaeda terror group, Osama bin Laden, and the ex-head of its Iraqi wing Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was killed June 7 by the US Army.

The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda announced on June 20 it had executed the two American soldiers whose bodies were found south of Baghdad.

memyselfI
07-10-2006, 09:31 PM
So, seriously....are you as passionate about the need to bring these "freedom fighters/insurgents" to justice... as you are about bringing the criminal American soldiers to justice, who allegedly committed dispicable acts?

:hmmm:

Yep, I hope the find and try the people who murdered the soldiers. Chances are they will be killed or jailed without trial. Lucky for our soldiers they will actually get a chance to defend themselves.

On the domestic front, I'd like for Couey to fry and I'm not even a death penalty proponent.

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2006, 09:37 PM
Yep, I hope the find and try the people who murdered the soldiers. Chances are they will be killed or jailed without trial. Lucky for our soldiers they will actually get a chance to defend themselves.

On the domestic front, I'd like for Couey to fry and I'm not even a death penalty proponent.

Fair enough. Honestly, more of these types of statements, voluntarily, from you could do much to dispel the "radical" image of you around here. :clap:

Then again, maybe that doesn't matter to you. :shrug:

Logical
07-10-2006, 09:42 PM
Police deserve the benefit of the doubt too for the same reasons. I'm not sure what part you refuse to understand.

The court of public opinion rarely waits if an individual has confessed. When have you seen otherwise?

Now on the other hand the courts of law must wait, but that is not the standard for public opinion.

WilliamTheIrish
07-10-2006, 09:46 PM
I am actually laughing watching Banyon and De.nise debate law.

Banyon:"He's guilty... in your eyes?"

De.nice: I didn't say that. I said he confessed. Which is just as good as guilty."

Banyon: What if he was coerced?"

Den.ise: Yes. But I also understand that confessions (ie: Guilt) are retracted when attorney's get involved."

I simply wish to grant him his wish of being considered guilty because he's admitted he is. If he didn't wish to be considered guilty then he'd maintain his innocence especially if he's NOT guilty.


Hilarious shiot.

memyselfI
07-10-2006, 10:23 PM
Fair enough. Honestly, more of these types of statements, voluntarily, from you could do much to dispel the "radical" image of you around here. :clap:

Then again, maybe that doesn't matter to you. :shrug:

Bull, and not that I care. We are supposedly the people with honor and integrity and rule of law on OUR SIDE. The fact that some here want to make equations and exceptions compared to what terrorists do and how they should addressed is really beyond me.

memyselfI
07-10-2006, 10:25 PM
The court of public opinion rarely waits if an individual has confessed. When have you seen otherwise?

Now on the other hand the courts of law must wait, but that is not the standard for public opinion.


Exactly. Notice that no one here is willing to extend the same courtesy of waiting for a trial to John Couey when he reportedly confessed as well.

Subjective principle from people who supposedly hate such a thing... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2006, 10:32 PM
Bull, and not that I care. We are supposedly the people with honor and integrity and rule of law on OUR SIDE. The fact that some here want to make equations and exceptions compared to what terrorists do and how they should addressed is really beyond me.

You should have stopped, when you could have....:shake:

Iowanian
07-10-2006, 10:32 PM
Interestingly enough, it took days and weeks after the 2nd story broke for the clip attributing it to the alledged rape and murder to be made and posted.

stevieray
07-10-2006, 10:36 PM
Bull, and not that I care. We are supposedly the people with honor and integrity and rule of law on OUR SIDE. The fact that some here want to make equations and exceptions compared to what terrorists do and how they should addressed is really beyond me.

How convienant for you. By saying supposedly, it's almost like you are inferring that we don't possess those qualitiess, because you appear to point it out anytime a soldier veers off course of his duty... while stating that the insurgents have the right to attack americans, while not holding them to the same standards of honor and integrity.

Have you ever started a topic about anything positive from Iraq? Ever started a thread professing the same amount of contempt for the actions of the insurgents? Seems to me the only time you really "care", is when you can make the US look bad, regardless of the fact that the US military will undoubtedly take the appropiate actions against any or all rogue soldiers.

dirk digler
07-10-2006, 10:41 PM
While Denise doesn't post any positive news from Iraq or about the troops honestly I don't think it would matter to some here who posted this link and story. There are idiots on this board that would claim whoever posted it hated America and the troops.

The story was posted on Military.com and the US Military said he confessed. In the court of public opinion this guy is guy is guilty just like public opinion says OJ is guilty. But I bet some of you will come on here and defend OJ's innocence. :rolleyes:

If found guilty in the court of law this guy is no different than the terrorists and he should be hung and dragged through the streets of Iraq like the POS he is.

stevieray
07-10-2006, 10:43 PM
While Denise doesn't post any positive news from Iraq or about the troops honestly I don't think it would matter to some here who posted this link and story. There are idiots on this board that would claim whoever posted it hated America and the troops.

The story was posted on Military.com and the US Military said he confessed. In the court of public opinion this guy is guy is guilty just like public opinion says OJ is guilty. But I bet some of you will come on here and defend OJ's innocence. :rolleyes:

If found guilty in the court of law this guy is no different than the terrorists and he should be hung and dragged through the streets of Iraq like the POS he is.

Drama much? OJ? c'mon, man..

memyselfI
07-10-2006, 10:43 PM
While Denise doesn't post any positive news from Iraq or about the troops honestly I don't think it would matter to some here who posted this link and story. There are idiots on this board that would claim whoever posted it hated America and the troops.

The story was posted on Military.com and the US Military said he confessed. In the court of public opinion this guy is guy is guilty just like public opinion says OJ is guilty. But I bet some of you will come on here and defend OJ's innocence. :rolleyes:

If found guilty in the court of law this guy is no different than the terrorists and he should be hung and dragged through the streets of Iraq like the POS he is.

There are idiots on Military.com (and I read it weekly even when news like this isn't happening) who are accusing fellow soldiers of hating America and not supporting the troops because they've spoken out against the people who allegedly committed this crime. On Free Republic, there have been people who said the soldiers who reported this are traitors...

you are right, it doesn't matter to some.

stevieray
07-10-2006, 10:46 PM
you are right, it doesn't matter to some.

couldn't the same thing be applied to your statement that a video of OBL an SH plotting 9/11 wouldn't mean squat?

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2006, 10:47 PM
....you are right, it doesn't matter to some.

And those "some" are brain-dead idiots who don't deserve any serious consideration in answering their idioacy....:rolleyes:

:shake:

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2006, 10:48 PM
couldn't the same thing be applied to your statement that a video of OBL an SH plotting 9/11 would mean squat?

Exactly. :clap:

ZING!

ROFL

dirk digler
07-10-2006, 10:48 PM
Drama much? OJ? c'mon, man..

I try :)

Listen my point is simple, some here are bemoaning the fact we should hold this guy up to some standard they don't hold up for anyone else.
The one thing that pisses me off the most is hypocrites, a ****ing hate hypocrites.

patteeu
07-11-2006, 07:25 AM
The court of public opinion rarely waits if an individual has confessed. When have you seen otherwise?

Now on the other hand the courts of law must wait, but that is not the standard for public opinion.

I'm not arguing with that proposition. My argument with memyselfi was about whether or not banyon was basing his argument on the uniform or on the fact that the job of a soldier is not performed in a serene, controlled environment. He was, of course, arguing the latter but memyselfi reduced it to the former. All of her blather about confessions and the court of public opinion were just distractions.

patteeu
07-11-2006, 07:29 AM
I try :)

Listen my point is simple, some here are bemoaning the fact we should hold this guy up to some standard they don't hold up for anyone else.
The one thing that pisses me off the most is hypocrites, a ****ing hate hypocrites.

What are you talking about?

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 08:01 AM
What are you talking about?

Sometimes I don't even know... :)

Iowanian
07-11-2006, 08:31 AM
Given its statements about the photos of the "attrocities" at Abu Grahib and them being distrubuted....again, its interesting that the sukubus doesn't publicly disparage the terrorist
pukes for posting videos of them desecrating the severed heads of US servicemen.

Radar Chief
07-11-2006, 08:33 AM
You guys hold Denise to some standard that you don't hold for yourselves or people that you agree with.

Denise is a troll whose sole purpose is to try and annoy as many here as possible. What you’re read’n is just the latest, most convenient, tool she’s use’n to reach the desired result.

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 08:38 AM
Denise is a troll whose sole purpose is to try and annoy as many here as possible. What you’re read’n is just the latest, most convenient, tool she’s use’n to reach the desired result.

While that may or may not be true I am sure that if there was a story on Drudge Report or Fox News about Bill Clinton confessing to some crime the majority of conservatives would be saying he was Guilty before he was ever indicted or found guilty.

Radar Chief
07-11-2006, 08:46 AM
While that may or may not be true I am sure that if there was a story on Drudge Report or Fox News about Bill Clinton confessing to some crime the majority of conservatives would be saying he was Guilty before he was ever indicted or found guilty.

Are you, like, try’n to completely miss the point? :spock:
Your defense of Denise, and use of a dichotomy and diversion tactics, isn’t do’n much for this claim of yours to “fugg’n hate hypocrisy”. :shrug:

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 08:52 AM
Are you, like, try’n to completely miss the point? :spock:
Your defense of Denise, and use of a dichotomy and diversion tactics, isn’t do’n much for this claim of yours to “fugg’n hate hypocrisy”. :shrug:

The problem I have is people piling on Denise for posting a legit story from Military.com.

This isn't like Jaz posting about Rove being indicted in 2 weeks.

Radar Chief
07-11-2006, 08:56 AM
The problem I have is people piling on Denise for posting a legit story from Military.com.

This isn't like Jaz posting about Rove being indicted in 2 weeks.

Denise gets “piled on” ‘cause of the way she acts. If she didn’t have the uncontrollable need to act like a jackass she wouldn’t get treated like one. It really is just that simple.

Chief Henry
07-11-2006, 09:07 AM
There are idiots on Military.com (and I read it weekly even when news like this isn't happening) who are accusing fellow soldiers of hating America and not supporting the troops because they've spoken out against the people who allegedly committed this crime. On Free Republic, there have been people who said the soldiers who reported this are traitors...

you are right, it doesn't matter to some.

If you read it WEEKLY, how come you never post the positive stories
hmmmmmm?

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 09:10 AM
Denise gets “piled on” ‘cause of the way she acts. If she didn’t have the uncontrollable need to act like a jackass she wouldn’t get treated like one. It really is just that simple.

It must have been the bold letters in her original post that set everyone off. :)

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 09:11 AM
If you read it WEEKLY, how come you never post the positive stories
hmmmmmm?

That is a legit point.

Radar Chief
07-11-2006, 09:16 AM
It must have been the bold letters in her original post that set everyone off. :)

Maybe, at least in combination with a long history of “tee hee’n” or add’n “oopsy poopsy”, or something similar, on topics like this. :shrug:

dirk digler
07-11-2006, 09:21 AM
Maybe, at least in combination with a long history of “tee hee’n” or add’n “oopsy poopsy”, or something similar, on topics like this. :shrug:

Probably and honestly I don't know why I am defending her but maybe it is because part of me agrees with her on this one story.

Iowanian
07-11-2006, 09:32 AM
Dirk.

Dense has a multi-year history of "ooops", "US troop does something terrible" and "Freedom fighters" and supports insurgents right to kill US troops.....and then lambasts the US for "killing them too dead".

Given all that and the "search for the truth"...she never posts anything remotely positive regarding us troops or events.

She'll say crap like "the real war is in Afganistan"...but doesn't have anything to say when US troops kill 55 Taliban terrorists in Southern Afganistan in 2 days this week.

go bowe
07-11-2006, 09:36 AM
and this is news, how?

Chief Henry
07-11-2006, 10:59 AM
Dirk.

Dense has a multi-year history of "ooops", "US troop does something terrible" and "Freedom fighters" and supports insurgents right to kill US troops.....and then lambasts the US for "killing them too dead".

Given all that and the "search for the truth"...she never posts anything remotely positive regarding us troops or events.

She'll say crap like "the real war is in Afganistan"...but doesn't have anything to say when US troops kill 55 Taliban terrorists in Southern Afganistan in 2 days this week.


Amen to that.

memyselfI
07-11-2006, 04:14 PM
and this is news, how?

I'm not sure what your question means but the news of the website and the alleged tie to the murder of the soldiers was just reported. The definition of 'news' would apply to this story by any measure of the word.

The link was originally insinuated as the coincidence of soldiers being kidnapped and murdered from the same platoon as those involved in the alleged rape would be remarkable.

The sad part is what a horror for the families of these soldiers to know that their loved ones may have paid for other people's vile and horrible acts.

The barbarism of all the perpetrators in this entire story is sickening.

BIG_DADDY
07-11-2006, 04:59 PM
The sad part is what a horror for the families of these soldiers to know that their loved ones may have paid for other people's vile and horrible acts.
.

Yea well if people had to pay for all your vile and horrible posts we would have to nuke Bahgdad to get justice.