919. ART. 119. MANSLAUGHTER
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.
--Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Provoked or not, in the heat of passion or not, the Marine in question comitted a crime under the UCMJ which must be duly investigated. As Americans, and especially in the armed services, we do not compromise or otherwise lower our standards. The tactics employed by the enemy do not excuse or exclude our soldiers from the UCMJ and the recognized laws of war.
This is what makes us different from the insurgents, terrorists, and other barbarians that we're fighting in Iraq and elsewhere.
My BP is rising too much so I have to get out of this thread !
So you've decided he's guilty already but it needs to be investigated ?..........how nice. Kinda like if yer suspected witch wrapped in chains sinks she's guilty.....
This isn't a uniform war, sorry, you lose every day and twice on Tuesdays...
And for the record, we need to keep from putting our troops in this kind of predicament.
Use more REALLY BIG BOMBS and FEWER WARRIORS.
And yes, you are a Zero...
Good post!
To investigate and to punish with the regulations of the law if this particular soldier is found guilty, will be the only possibility to get out of this quagmire.
America is fighting for freedom and not for barbarism!
BTW - to punish criminals has nothing to do with a lack of support for the American troops or president Bush. President Bush is standing for humanity and the freedom of the press. This is the reason why he is a real leader in this world. Legalizing war crimes, killing civilians without need and surpressing information was the issue of Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.
Circumstances in extenuation and mitigation:
832. ART. 32. INVESTIGATION
(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.
Zero times zero sums up what I think about your post.
Our military kills over 1,000 terrorists in a couple of days, and we're upset that our military killed 1 specific terrorist? They're doing what they should be doing....
shall be left the F alone so he can do his job
Since you either are a lawyer or merely playing one on the internet, aren't you forgetting something? That definition includes the word "unlawfully", right? Yet, nothing in that Article defines what is "unlawful". So if you're going to claim that his actions violated the law of war and the UCMJ, you've fallen short at this point. All you've done is post the tautology that an unlawful act is unlawful.
So how 'bout directing us primates to the specific Article of the UCMC or Law of Armed Conflict or Geneva Conventions that you believe made his actions "unlawful"? Because the devil is in the details in this one.