Posted on 09/09/2007 2:55:08 PM PDT by RedRover
There is a story on our local NBC station, KPVI Channel 6 http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=7043955, sorry, but i don’t know how to link this.
I take that last part back
The most likely source of weapons in a battle area are the weapons of those who’ve fled or those who’ve died.
If they’ve died, then weapons lying around probably belonged to them before they died.
Assigning weapons to bodies is NOT planting weapons on those bodies. It’s an attempt to re-create the battle.
Now, so far as a Ranger sniper mission, all I can say is that there are such things. Classified sniper missions are also reality.
If the government is willing to prosecute a classified mission, then the government should have to reveal the classified mission so decisions about it can be based on fact. Just my humble opinion.
If they claim revealing information would compromise ongoing
missions then they might get around that.
Prosecutors also love to throw the book at people, possibly to make a plea agreement more appealing.
There's got to be a way for the actual facts to be discussed. I've searched all over for info on this Iskandariyah case, and all you get from the military websites, news reports, etc. is "charged with." No info on who,what,when,where,why,how. It's frustrating.
If someone is charged there's got to be some way for his lawyers and others to ponder the facts so they can respond in defense of the soldier.
btt
Anybody out there want some flyers?
Check out Posts #21 and #22
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.