Here we go again

[Funcioneta]

Some of you are saying your military laws cancel your constitution?  :-o Or I am missing something?

A person cannot kill intentionally a unarmed innocent person without punishment. It don’t mind if the murdered is a soldier, it must be punished. Justice is one of the basics of democracy.

[Pervavita]

yes some things in the millitary cansol out laws that are established. such as trial by jury or even double jeperdy (you can be tried by civilian court and then tried by the UCMJ or even in reverse and be convicted in both casses for the exact same crime).
this dose not mean that murder is ignored at all. the UCMJ holds millitary personel to a higher standard not a lower standard.
the problem as i see it is not that murder or unlawfull actions take place over seas. my problem is that the governement and media is going to far and convicting these troops before they are tried.
this is not a war like WWII in that it’s enamy solders in uniform, we are instead facing people who will strap a bomb on there own son and send them forward to detinate when the US forces (or even there allies) do what we have been raised to do, be kind to children.
if you saw your friend get blown up this way, would you wait for the next kid to walk up to you? some would, but not all and you can’t convict some one of murder if they truelly beleve there is a risk to them self. we are convicting our service men for doing there job, when they do it and it is found out that it was a cavilian i can understand the desire to make them look like a combatant. why? if you got reports that other guys are serving prison terms for doing exactly what you did, wouldn’t you want to save your skin? or would it be better to just let every one of the people walk up to you and your squad and just hope they don’t detinate? there is a fine line hear and the government has crossed over to convict those who they should be protecting and helping.

[Funcioneta]

@Pervavita:

yes some things in the millitary cansol out laws that are established. such as trial by jury or even double jeperdy (you can be tried by civilian court and then tried by the UCMJ or even in reverse and be convicted in both casses for the exact same crime).
this dose not mean that murder is ignored at all. the UCMJ holds millitary personel to a higher standard not a lower standard.
the problem as i see it is not that murder or unlawfull actions take place over seas. my problem is that the governement and media is going to far and convicting these troops before they are tried.
this is not a war like WWII in that it’s enamy solders in uniform, we are instead facing people who will strap a bomb on there own son and send them forward to detinate when the US forces (or even there allies) do what we have been raised to do, be kind to children.
if you saw your friend get blown up this way, would you wait for the next kid to walk up to you? some would, but not all and you can’t convict some one of murder if they truelly beleve there is a risk to them self. we are convicting our service men for doing there job, when they do it and it is found out that it was a cavilian i can understand the desire to make them look like a combatant. why? if you got reports that other guys are serving prison terms for doing exactly what you did, wouldn’t you want to save your skin? or would it be better to just let every one of the people walk up to you and your squad and just hope they don’t detinate? there is a fine line hear and the government has crossed over to convict those who they should be protecting and helping.

So the soldiers should can kill innocent unarmed people without punishement? Only because they are too frightened? What if a guy kills another only because he hates the muslims? If is a soldier, he can go free?

[Pervavita]

as i said (or entended for it to come accross as) is that it has a grey area that no one in the media or government is willing to see.
this war you don’t know who the combatants are in all casses, you can be killed by a little boy or girl who comes up to you and you think they want candy (the troops over there give it out a lot) now as your friend goes to give the candy the child blows up killing your friend and some other troops in your unit. what would you realy do when the next kid or group of kids comes up? would you step forward and offer them candy? i doupt it, so you tell the kid('s) to stop, they don’t understand you, or if you do know a few words in there language you tell them to stop. now this kid dosn’t stop as you instruct them. so you shot the kid. no one wants to go home in a pine box after all, or worse yet be the one responcable for the death of there friends. now what happens is lets say the kid had no bomb, so now the solder/Marine is tried for shooting an unarmed civilian child. he is now convicted, what message did that just send to eveary other solder on the ground?
in 2004 a friend and naighbor of mine was in Iraq, he was in a fire fight in Bagdad and one of the guys with him was covering a door way that enamy combatants were in. rounds were exchanged. out of the building ran a enamy solder firing. he made it to cover, but right behind him was a little boy who ran out. needless to say the little boy did not make it to cover. the Marine was not convicted or sent back state side, but that is the closest direct example i have (i got it secound hand as opposed to 3rd or 4th) to how the enamy in Iraq is fighting. they will use there own children to attack us or sacrafice there children to win the war. that Marine who shot the boy was removed from combat because he felt rightfully so guilty for what he did. so in this case they were able to remove 1 Marine from combat and make at the vary least a squad (13 Marines) secound guess there actions in each battle so they don’t repeat his actions.

[U-505]

We know there is a gray area in military situations. You are trying to place that gray area into Sgt Vela’s situation even though there isn’t a gray area in Sgt Vela’s case. His case is clear cut. He knew he committed multiple crimes. He confessed to them.

What you are doing is taking a particular situation you’ve heard of and trying to apply that specific soldier’s innocence to decriminalize every possible criminal act committed by every soldier in this conflict. The “this one guy was innocent so they are all innocent” argument doesn’t work.

And I think you are referring to Vietnam. I have never heard of the insurgents using children as suicide bombs, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in that, however unlikely, it is possible. Even if they have done that though, I know for a fact that the vast majority of casualties come from roadside bombs, carbombs, and small arms fire. I believe that the situation you describe would be considered rare at best.

[Pervavita]

M36’s first post is set in a way to leave it open to all situations like this, these are the situations i am refering to. if he admited guilt, then so be it. he is guilty then. i am refering to the constent attacks on the millitary of guilt before trial.

suicide bombers have been in Iraq and Afganistan children and women. the children are not as common as in Vnam but they still are there. that aside, we do face suicide bombers that are men as well. it dosn’t change that if you see a man walk up and blow up that you should not be carfull of others. you see this state side as well where cops tell some one to put there hands up and when the suspect puts there hand in there pocket the cop shots them and then when they find out they were reaching for ID the cop is on trial and all over the news you hear about cops going out of control just shooting “good boys”. the media scews things all the time.

i also am not going for the “this one guy was innocent so they are all innocent” argument, i am saying that the media, a % of our population and a % of our governemnt officals seam to use the argument “this one guy is guilty so they are all guilty”. i am saying that investigations need to occure before guilt is thrown down as it is that media bius that is causing a lot of troubles.

[Guest]

First off, I tend to give our military the benefit of the doubt in most cases.  I am a Vet myself of multiple branches and I know the deal.

HOWEVER…
Being a vet I also had military law hammered into my head.  I suspect SGT Vela did as well.  He acted in a manner not in agreement with his training, and that is the FIRST step toward catastrophe as all of our active military and vets on here will tell you.

The fact that his violation of his training resulted in the death of non-Americans (instead of his fellow unit members which is NORMALLY what happens when military folks ignore their training) is the only reason we are discussing this.  Had his actions in violation of training resulted in the death of other Americans, the same folks saying he is being thrown to the wolves would be screaming (rightfully so) for his blood.

Lesson 1 of the US Military:
FOLLOW YOUR TRAINING!

[Jennifer]

I don’t really give a rats about Sgt Vela or what he did or did not do.  What matters to me is the ridiculous standard the world has set for the American Military.  If we so much as breath too hard in the direction of an innocent civilian, we get demonized in the world stage.

That’s what I care about.

[dezrtfish]

I care about good fried chicken, breaded not battered, extra crispy with mashed potatoes that have real butter and cheder cheese mixed in.  That’s what I care about. :wink:

[Guest]

@Cmdr:

What matters to me is the ridiculous standard the world has set for the American Military.

You must have missed where I posted this above.

The “world” did not set this standard… WE DID.  We did it first at Nuremberg and have kept it going ever since.

That is the standard of the United States of America… the standard that we made the entire world accept as legitimate in 1945 and 1946, and the standard we have held everyone else to ever since.

IF WE DID ANYTHING LESS THAN HOLD OUR OWN SOLDIERS TO OUR OWN STANDARD IT WOULD BE OPEN SEASON ON EVERY US CITIZEN AND SOLDIER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

[cyan]

@Pervavita:

M36’s first post is set in a way to leave it open to all situations like this, these are the situations i am refering to. if he admited guilt, then so be it. he is guilty then.

saying your guilty doesn’t mean anything. it doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong. you may of had a good reason to break the law like fear for you life and the safety of others. also a lot of people who were sent to the gulags confessed but never committed any crime. i’m not saying americans  are tortured into confession but many plea to a crime just so they get less time even if they didn’t do it but can’t prove there innocence.

[Jermofoot]

@Pervavita:

don’t see how this changes what i say. if war = murder then we have a world full of murderers that in many casses murdered to deffend life. this can be a discustion all on it’s own, i am just stating that to call war murder is a vary simple statment like saying Muslams are terorist. it can be true, but it is not always true and as such makes the statment false.

Murdered to defend life?  How absurd is that?  As others have pointed out, that’s like saying I’m screwing for virginity.
All I’m saying is that I think it’s ridiculous that some people think it’s ok to shoot/stab/blow up other people in the name of war, especially when those people fighting really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand.  Some think it’s honor, I think it’s stupidity.  So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

hu? i know he wasn’t, he is subject to the UCMJ as he is a solder fighting in uniform.

Let me put it this way…if terrorists attack us, are you going to extradite them to be tried in  their country of origin?  It’s absurd to say that anyone is subject to our laws while they are in the US, but our soldiers are also subject to our laws and not the nation they are located in.

as i said i don’t know it all, i do know though that it is unlikelly that WE know it all any way.

He confessed.  I’m not sure there is much more to say.

Your justifing a person that is supost to represent the people to accuse people with out trial (guarded by both constatution and UCMJ) of murder. it was not a statment by Murtha that was an “if guilty”, but it was “they are guilty”. even if this is guarded under the constatution (as it is) he made the statments as a senater (represenative of the government), so he was acting at the vary least iresponcable, but i feel he was trampeling on other peoples rights to a fair trial. he hid behind the constatution to trample on other peoples constatutional rights. his act should have been made a big deal and cost him his job through a trial of his own. even if it’s a millitary trial, you can’t say that those trieing are not perswaided by our own governemnt (you know the guys who sighn there pay cheaks).

There was impropriety in the act AND the neglect of investigation.  So not only did he have the freedom to say what he said, he was justified in that the military really screwed this one up.  In that way, it makes HIM look bad (being a veteran).  No crime is committed there, and the truth was revealed.  However, it’s probably not the smartest thing for him to say, especially if he is considering reelection, but why are you more upset about him and not the soldiers that f’d up, tried to cover it up, and gave YOU a bad name?  Seems like misplaced rage to me.

[Jermofoot]

@Cmdr:

I don’t really give a rats about Sgt Vela or what he did or did not do.  What matters to me is the ridiculous standard the world has set for the American Military.  If we so much as breath too hard in the direction of an innocent civilian, we get demonized in the world stage.

That’s what I care about.

Besides what Switch pointed out, I just don’t see this criticism.  At all.  I mean, do you go looking for it or something?

[Pervavita]

Murdered to defend life?  How absurd is that?  As others have pointed out, that’s like saying I’m screwing for virginity.
All I’m saying is that I think it’s ridiculous that some people think it’s ok to shoot/stab/blow up other people in the name of war, especially when those people fighting really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand.  Some think it’s honor, I think it’s stupidity.  So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

Let me put it this way…if terrorists attack us, are you going to extradite them to be tried in  their country of origin?  It’s absurd to say that anyone is subject to our laws while they are in the US, but our soldiers are also subject to our laws and not the nation they are located in.

a terrorist is not a member of an organized governement body. you can not send them to a group that they are subject to as there is non. if a US CITIZEN goes to a country and kills people then they are tried in that country. that is a terorist. these are solders in uniform fighting for the US. they are not terorist.

He confessed.  I’m not sure there is much more to say.

again i still doupt we know it all.

There was impropriety in the act AND the neglect of investigation.  So not only did he have the freedom to say what he said, he was justified in that the military really screwed this one up.  In that way, it makes HIM look bad (being a veteran).  No crime is committed there, and the truth was revealed.  However, it’s probably not the smartest thing for him to say, especially if he is considering reelection, but why are you more upset about him and not the soldiers that f’d up, tried to cover it up, and gave YOU a bad name?  Seems like misplaced rage to me.

neglect of investigation, this statment came out that i am directly reffering to with Mirtha when the investigation had just started. his slander was before the investigation had concluded and before a trial had started. it would be the same as your naighbor who did not like you saying you broke into there house and raped his wife. then when the investigation starts a leading public offical comes out and condems you before the evidence is even collected. this action from a public offical is horible, the chances of a fair trial were compermised by this as there is now no way to have an un biused trial. that is why i am mad at the man. the evidence in this case that i’m reffering to as far as i can tell is no condeming as it was just hear say when it started. where it is now i don’t know. i can’t find any information on it last i tried to look.

[dezrtfish]

@Jermofoot:

So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

@Websters:

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing  \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a: to put an end to b: tease, torment c: mutilate, mangle <murders french=“”>d: to defeat badly
intransitive verb
: to commit murder</murders>

By definition Murder is killing unlawfully  so:

War = killing 
sometimes there is murder durring war, but war does not = murder

[dezrtfish]

btw,
In this case he was found guilty, I wasn’t there, and I wasn’t on the jury so I assume he is guilty as charged.

[Jennifer]

I agree.  Even the Bible authorizes killing in war.  In fact, God has sent armies in to kill all men, women and children in some cases.  I’m sure the same can be found in almost every religion, with exceptions being the rarity, not the majority.

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

[Jermofoot]

@Pervavita:

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

When have Americans ever done that in the past 2 centuries?  I can’t even think of one.  Anyway, I answer this mostly below to dezrt.

a terrorist is not a member of an organized governement body. you can not send them to a group that they are subject to as there is non. if a US CITIZEN goes to a country and kills people then they are tried in that country. that is a terorist. these are solders in uniform fighting for the US. they are not terorist.

I just gave a simple example.  But let’s use your example.  Why wasn’t this soldier tried in Iraq?

neglect of investigation, this statment came out that i am directly reffering to with Mirtha when the investigation had just started. his slander was before the investigation had concluded and before a trial had started. it would be the same as your naighbor who did not like you saying you broke into there house and raped his wife. then when the investigation starts a leading public offical comes out and condems you before the evidence is even collected. this action from a public offical is horible, the chances of a fair trial were compermised by this as there is now no way to have an un biused trial. that is why i am mad at the man. the evidence in this case that i’m reffering to as far as i can tell is no condeming as it was just hear say when it started. where it is now i don’t know. i can’t find any information on it last i tried to look.

Well, here’s the thing.  The investigation never would have happened if it weren’t for Time magazine, who reported the event months before Murtha said anything.  The only reason he did say anything is because they were dragging their feet.  It wasn’t slander, and frankly, you could just ignore him since his opinion is pretty irrelevant.  The defendants also have quite a few more perks when it comes to comparison to civilian trials, and those are reported to death in the media.  The Haditha massacre is no where near the level of coverage that OJ (who got more than a fair trial), Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, or anyone else they are covering now.  So, I’m sorry to say your rage is unfound.  Better to just drop it and wonder why these guys did this, why the administration failed to report it and follow up, and why it took the media to uncover a tragedy like this and get something done.

@dezrtfish:

@Jermofoot:

So all I’m pointing out is that war is murder, just “legalized” because the state says it’s ok.

@Websters:

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing  \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a: to put an end to b: tease, torment c: mutilate, mangle <murders french=“”>d: to defeat badly
intransitive verb
: to commit murder</murders>

By definition Murder is killing unlawfully  so:

War = killing 
sometimes there is murder durring war, but war does not = murder

I was just demonstrating that it’s easy to label something if you want to hard enough.  I have a very negative opinion of war, but I don’t think everyone involved is a murderer.  I do think the chiefs that declare and conduct them are pricks though.  But it’s beside the point because M36 never responded to it.

@Cmdr:

I agree.  Even the Bible authorizes killing in war.  In fact, God has sent armies in to kill all men, women and children in some cases.  I’m sure the same can be found in almost every religion, with exceptions being the rarity, not the majority.

The bible also has incest, rape, subversion of women, etc., so I guess that makes those ok too, huh?  Not to mention that the majority of the world doesn’t follow the Bible, so I don’t even know why that’s relevant.

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

How about if I just don’t like shooting people or being shot at?  Will that float?  Or do I have to be in some club for it to mean anything?

[Pervavita]

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

is it murder to stand infront of your family with a gun and shoot a person that is shooting at your family first? that is deffence. to say war=murder is far to simple. George Washington, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln are all murder’s by your standard. sorry i just don’t see it, that is the point i am making.

When have Americans ever done that in the past 2 centuries?  I can’t even think of one.  Anyway, I answer this mostly below to dezrt.

i used an extream example, but there are instances in the news even in the last few years of people using guns to kill murderers to save lifes in the states or using guns to protect there family from those who have broke into there home, armed or not dosn’t matter as we do know people break into homes armed so why take the chance. it dosn’t change that war=murder is inaccurate. there are surcumstances that it is correct, but also when it is not.

I just gave a simple example.  But let’s use your example.  Why wasn’t this soldier tried in Iraq?

he is a member of the millitary serving and as such falls under the guide lines of his home nations laws. comparing him to a terroist is not accurate. if a member of the Iraq army were to comit war crimes he would be tried by the Iraq government, unless the Iraq governemnt condones such actions and then if the Iraq governement had sighned on to said war crimes treaty then the leaders in Iraq would fall under the rules of war in that they would be tried.
with that said, i am not a fan of forcing nations to obide by rules that they do not sighn. for example Nazi Germany should not have been able to be held accountable for any Crimes with no treaty sighned saying what they did was wronge. no nation should be able to force another to do what there nation wants, no matter how horible that nation is acting unless that nation is a threat to security and then in the intrest of protecting your own people then go to war. but this is a fully diffrent debate.

Well, here’s the thing.  The investigation never would have happened if it weren’t for Time magazine, who reported the event months before Murtha said anything.  The only reason he did say anything is because they were dragging their feet.  It wasn’t slander, and frankly, you could just ignore him since his opinion is pretty irrelevant.  The defendants also have quite a few more perks when it comes to comparison to civilian trials, and those are reported to death in the media.  The Haditha massacre is no where near the level of coverage that OJ (who got more than a fair trial), Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, or anyone else they are covering now.  So, I’m sorry to say your rage is unfound.  Better to just drop it and wonder why these guys did this, why the administration failed to report it and follow up, and why it took the media to uncover a tragedy like this and get something done.

that stroy from the Times was not by a fully credible source and should not have been taken as fact. if those Marines did a cover up (and i have not heard any proff to say they did that is credable) then they should be tried. the Times story came from a witness, but not one last i heard that could be found. i don’t think Mirtha was in the right to bring up this like he did. it was not a “IF they are guilty” but it was a “they ARE guilty” statment and that is where he was wrong and interfiered IMO in the investigation and trial.
on the other high profile casses, this is diffrent, but i don’t agree that they should be so high profile ether, atleast untill the trial is over. i feel the media is wrong in making a big deal out of all of them, i don’t think that the government should step in but it is a sighn of our nations lack of judgment that such things are popular.
Mirtha if the Marines were found guilty would have been in the right to make statments about those Marines that were like he did, but not before, and not with the evidence of hear say as that is all the evidence that was brought up untill a few months ago.

[dezrtfish]

@Cmdr:

However, the US Army does allow you to opt out if it violates your religion to kill someone, even if it means that he will kill you.  (Conscientious objector.)  But, as we know, there are no aethiests in a fox hole and there are not many who would lay there prostrate and allow the enemy to drill bullets into their body without offering up at least token resistance.

Conscientious objector status is allowed duriing times of a draft or conscription.  You can’t voluntarily join the army if you object to doing what the army does.  If you try to file for CO status today it will get denied baring some highly unusual religious conversion.  Even then it’s doubtful.