Here we go again

@Cmdr:

You’re looking at a very small microcosm to prove your point, Jermo.  I’m looking at the WHOLE picture.  That’s why your comments seem so insanely stupid.  You only want to talk about one case, I want to talk about how the world treats American military men and women in general.  You accidentally cause someone to get a hangnail and the world wants to string you up by your entrails and even then won’t be satisfied.

We are talking about the soldier M36 posted.  Start a new thread with your nonsense.

Maybe this guy did wrong.  Dunno.  Don’t really care.  It’s not relevant.  He’s one minor little case on which my argument will not be hung from.  Not when there’s literally tens of thousands of other cases where one American military member made a mistake and the world wants to demonize all American military members (and by world, I include some domestic individuals too.)

Where?  Again you are just spouting crap to make you look like some kind of victim.  It isn’t so.

@M36:

Unit, Corp, God, Country. I would imagine the Army follows a similar doctrine.

The point is that you cannot be an effective fighting force if you can’t trust the guys watching your back. My loyalty is first to my comrades who will be blowing to hell anyone who tries to do me harm, not to some absurd notion of right and wrong laid down by a broken society which has already legalized murder and called it choice. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

And if this situation had happened in America, things would be different because the man probably would not be going back home to tell the local terrorist mullah where our location was.

How was an innocent, unarmed civilian doing anyone harm?  Regardless, being in the military doesn’t give you a carte blanche to do as you wish with anyone.  You have a great responsibility with your power.  This guy didn’t understand that.

If this guy would kill unarmed civilians (multiple times), and even go so far as to cover it up, my guess is you couldn’t trust him.  Would he ditch you in a fire fight?  Would he leave you to die to save his own ass?

Furthermore, isn’t war “legalized” murder?

i think from my uderstanding of M36’s first post and post after words that it was not limmited to the one incident.

Furthermore, isn’t war “legalized” murder?

if thats true, then Lincoln=Bin Loden; Hitler=Churchhill; Ted Bundy=Patton.
they are two diffrent situations and you can’t compair them in such a simple term.

The guy killed a undefended man without provocation. The army punished the guy. I think it’s OK. It should work so.

If a soldier could “accidentally” kill a civilian and the army would cover him or her, next civilian killed could be you. Or your family.

About Americans and such… well UK soldiers also got punished for something similar a time ago. And if some Spanish soldier would make something similar, I’d also glad if the justice punish him/her (and would be very frightened if they don’t punish it, I don’t want come back to the dictatorship). Not an “all against America” issue, only a justice issue.

When you joined the military, you took an oath to defend the Constitution. And that means the whole Constitution, not just the parts you deem worthy of defending. I don’t care whether or not you think some parts of it are broken. You don’t have the right to make the decision to obey only the parts you like. Nobody does. Nobody is above the Constitution. Not Sgt. Vela, not you.

When you volunteer to join the American Armed Forces, you represent America. And that means you have a duty to act like an American. That means here, in another country, or on another freakin planet. If it’s wrong here, it’s wrong there.

In your title of United States Marine, there is a reason that United States comes before the word marine. They are doing something wrong if they are training people to think that anything or anyone is above their country and it’s laws. You serve your country, not your buddies.

@M36:

Unit, Corp, God, Country. I would imagine the Army follows a similar doctrine.

The point is that you cannot be an effective fighting force if you can’t trust the guys watching your back.

So, trusting the guy watching your back means helping him cover up a murder? You can’t trust anyone who murders an unarmed man. I think your concept of trust is a bit skewed.

@M36:

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

And if this situation had happened in America, things would be different because the man probably would not be going back home to tell the local terrorist mullah where our location was.

Bullsht. If they were so worried about local terrorists being led back to their hideout then why did they let the son go? Why didn’t they kill him, too? They knew what they did was wrong. Legally. Morally. Wrong. That’s why they planted the weapon on him. The ONE fcking thing that makes us better than the terrorists is that we can stand up and say that we don’t murder innocent people. If we can’t say that then we don’t belong there because we are no better than they are. And that’s a disgrace to this country and everything it stands for.

I know that situation is royally f*cked up. And I don’t want to see anyone die, especially another American. But if you get faced with the choice of dying for your country or murdering an innocent person then you need to choose dying for your country without a second thought because that’s why you are there. The innocent are what you are fighting to protect. That’s your job and it’s the price you pay for the respect you get from the American people and the reason you’re called heroes.

Sgt. Vela wasn’t a hero, he was an executioner. It made me sick to think that he had the balls to ask for mercy from the court and the man’s family when he had no mercy for the man he killed. He deserved a lot worse than he got.

An army that can kill undefended civilians without punishment cannot be effective. My constitution says all citizens are equal against the law (art. 14), I think American constitution also says so. I agree with U-505

Nations constatutions are ment to be directed to the nation and only the nation that it implies, other wise I as a US citizen would be subject to Russian or Chiness law.
i’m not personally justifing what this Sgt did, i don’t know the facts my self, non of us do. the media has a tendancy the scew the facts against the millitary. even if not true, i highly doupt all the facts of this trial were made public.
the problem is that we do have casses where innocount service men and women are convicted before trial even by the people and government that they are there to protect. when you have US seniters saying that men who have not been to trial yet are guilty, then you have a problem.

But what you are failing to realize is that we protect the US Constitution, not foreigners.  For all our oath means, there is NOTHING in there that says we cannot carpet bomb kittens and puppies for the fun of it.

Furthermore, military personnel acting in a military situation are NOT subject to the domestic laws of this nation, but solely to the UCMJ which has different standards. (For one, you do NOT have the right to not criminalize yourself, you MUST testify.  You also do not have the right to an attorney nor are you guaranteed a speedy trial, etc.)

you allso can be tried for Adaultary  :-)

@Pervavita:

you allso can be tried for Adaultary  :-)

But you cannot if you are a civilian.  As I said, UCMJ is not Civil Law.

i know, thats why i said it. it was in additon to what you were saying.

@Pervavita:

if thats true, then Lincoln=Bin Loden; Hitler=Churchhill; Ted Bundy=Patton.
they are two diffrent situations and you can’t compair them in such a simple term.

I was responding to M36’s notion that abortion is murder.  Is war not murder then?  Just because you put on a uniform for your country doesn’t mean that people weren’t purposely killed.

@Pervavita:

Nations constatutions are ment to be directed to the nation and only the nation that it implies, other wise I as a US citizen would be subject to Russian or Chiness law.

Except that he wasn’t subject to Iraqi law, so I’d guess he got off particularly easy.  Lucky him.

i’m not personally justifing what this Sgt did, i don’t know the facts my self, non of us do. the media has a tendancy the scew the facts against the millitary. even if not true, i highly doupt all the facts of this trial were made public.

He confessed.

the problem is that we do have casses where innocount service men and women are convicted before trial even by the people and government that they are there to protect. when you have US seniters saying that men who have not been to trial yet are guilty, then you have a problem.

There are non-military citizens that suffer the same.  The only difference is that the military handles their own, so there can’t possibly be the sentence before trial that you suggest happens.
And one of the freedoms you are supposedly protecting is freedom of speech.  That Senator lives in the US, ya know. 
Furthermore, if you are speaking of Haditha, the problem was not Murtha.  It took the media to finally get the upper echelons of the military to investigate.  In this case, the media brought justice where the military denied it.

@Cmdr:

But what you are failing to realize is that we protect the US Constitution, not foreigners.  For all our oath means, there is NOTHING in there that says we cannot carpet bomb kittens and puppies for the fun of it.

Furthermore, military personnel acting in a military situation are NOT subject to the domestic laws of this nation, but solely to the UCMJ which has different standards. (For one, you do NOT have the right to not criminalize yourself, you MUST testify.  You also do not have the right to an attorney nor are you guaranteed a speedy trial, etc.)

Now you are arguing semantics. The criminal code of military justice is based on civilian criminal code. UCMJ doesn’t cover mass animal massacres but murdering a detained unarmed person(whether a civilian or combatant), attempting to cover up murder, and lying about it to investigators certainly is covered by UCMJ.

Sgt Vela and everyone else involved knew they was doing wrong. You just don’t try to cover up something when you haven’t committed a crime. Especially when you are granted the gray area latitude that military code affords you.

If the guy and his son had stumbled into their hiding place and Sgt Vela had shot him instantly I would feel different about this, but when you can measure time in that situation in minutes, then everybody there were clearly thinking about that situation and not just reacting.

@M36:

The Army is only hurting themselves. Sgt. Vela was an effective soldier, yet now he is behind bars, his rifle is silent, and the enemy has one less barrel pointed at them.

Generally speaking, killing civilians is not effective, and Vela apparently had trouble knowing where to point his rifle anyway…

@Jermofoot:

@Pervavita:

if thats true, then Lincoln=Bin Loden; Hitler=Churchhill; Ted Bundy=Patton.
they are two diffrent situations and you can’t compair them in such a simple term.

I was responding to M36’s notion that abortion is murder.  Is war not murder then?  Just because you put on a uniform for your country doesn’t mean that people weren’t purposely killed.
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.

@Pervavita:

Nations constatutions are ment to be directed to the nation and only the nation that it implies, other wise I as a US citizen would be subject to Russian or Chiness law.

Except that he wasn’t subject to Iraqi law, so I’d guess he got off particularly easy.  Lucky him.
hu? i know he wasn’t, he is subject to the UCMJ as he is a solder fighting in uniform.

i’m not personally justifing what this Sgt did, i don’t know the facts my self, non of us do. the media has a tendancy the scew the facts against the millitary. even if not true, i highly doupt all the facts of this trial were made public.

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

the problem is that we do have casses where innocount service men and women are convicted before trial even by the people and government that they are there to protect. when you have US seniters saying that men who have not been to trial yet are guilty, then you have a problem.

There are non-military citizens that suffer the same.  The only difference is that the military handles their own, so there can’t possibly be the sentence before trial that you suggest happens.
And one of the freedoms you are supposedly protecting is freedom of speech.  That Senator lives in the US, ya know. 
Furthermore, if you are speaking of Haditha, the problem was not Murtha.  It took the media to finally get the upper echelons of the military to investigate.  In this case, the media brought justice where the military denied it.
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).

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.

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.