Posted on 05/31/2006 4:01:53 PM PDT by Types_with_Fist
A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops’ account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
President George W. Bush said he was troubled by news stories on the November 19 killings of men, women and children in the town of Haditha, and a general at the Pentagon said the incident could complicate the job for the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
“Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate,” Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the military’s Joint Staff, told a Pentagon briefing.
The choice is yours as to whether or not you continue to say things for which there is NO foundation.
Very nice touch, ohio.
Too bad the need was so great for some high-powered intervention.
I could not believe what I was seeing, and I thought we'd seen about everything.
Amen, we put on the whole armor of God against evil and those that would attempt to spread evil lies and rumors.
Amen!
The President's actual statement [ . . . strikes me as both diplomatic AND supportive of our "honorable" Marines]:
"I am troubled by the initial news stories. I am mindful that there is a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, the laws were broken, there will be punishment. I know this: I've talked to General Pete Pace about the subject, who is a proud Marine, and nobody is more concerned about these allegations than the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is full of men and women who are honorable people who understand rules of war. And if, in fact, these allegations are true, the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture, that proud culture will be reinforced, and that those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060531-1.html
You're not big on measured responses, I take it?
I won't. The U.S. military does not need ass-hats that are indeed guilty of what these particular soldiers allegedly did.
That being said, in the military, reporting and investigating crime differs from civilian communities. In most civilian communities, individuals report crimes to their local police departments. The police then conduct investigations and make initial decisions about whether to charge someone for minor offenses (i.e., by issuing tickets). The police refer major offenses to the local district attorney, who decides whether to file serious charges. The local district attorney, acting on behalf of the community, then decides how both minor and major cases are to be handled in court. Local courts try the cases and impose punishments.
Under the direction of the President, military commanders are responsible for maintaining law and order in the communities over which they have authority, and for maintaining the discipline of the fighting force. Reports of crimes by servicemembers ultimately come to their commanders' attention from law enforcement or criminal investigative agencies, as well as reports from individual servicemembers. In many minor cases involving military offenses, there has been no formal investigation by any law enforcement agency (including military police).
To help commanders decide how to resolve charges, commanders must make a "preliminary inquiry" into any allegations against a member of the command under military procedural Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) found in the Manual for Courts-Martial. These informal inquiries are sometimes referred to as R.C.M. 303 Inquiries. The commander can conduct this inquiry himself, appoint someone else in his command to do it, or, as happens in very serious cases, request assistance from civilian or military criminal investigative agencies. Although usually informal, the commander can require a more formal inquiry and a written report.
As noted, in complex or serious cases, commanders may need specialized, investigative assistance from military criminal investigative organizations to decide whether to prefer (initiate or "press") charges. Although these organizations are independent of the command and possess independent investigative authority, they also provide professional investigative support to commanders upon request.
When the commander finishes the preliminary inquiry, he must make a decision on how to resolve the case. Unlike civilian communities, where a district attorney decides whether or not to "press" charges, in the military, commanders make that decision. The commander could decide that no action at all is warranted. Or he could take administrative action, such as an admonition or reprimand, or making an adverse comment in performance evaluations, or seeking discharge of the member from the service. The commander also possesses nonjudicial punishment authority under the procedures of Article 15, UCMJ. The commander may also determine that criminal charges are appropriate. The "preferral" of charges, similar to "swearing out a complaint" in civilian jurisdictions, initiates the court-martial process.
Frankly I'm going to see how this plays out. However, if they are not vindicated, they are just as reprehensible, despicable and disgustingly vile in my eyes as any terrorist or suicide bomber. If mitigating circumstances are shown to be sufficiently compelling, I'd entertain the idea of justifiable homicide. Quite frankly, those circumstances would have to be extreme to justify shooting babies through the head.
along with Murtha, we know whose fault that is.............
Laura's putting on a brave face but behind closed doors, there's some friction.
And we all know where the DNCMSM is coming from..
Yes. They come from @*&$%&* $#@*&^% and their fathers are *&%$#@&^%.
I'm sick to death of hearing our great soldiers slammed, smeared, ridiculed and death wished and heaped upon them.
This is a marxist, communist stab at our beloved men and women in uniform.
I'm gonna have to lurk for a minute. My blood is boiling to see some FReepers actually falling for the 'smear the military' at all cost.
Amen!
A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops’ account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
WHY is this being tried in the court of public opinion?
Da', that's what he did say . . . [Arm-chair presidents are laughable . . . don't you agree?!]
"I am troubled by the initial news stories. I am mindful that there is a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, the laws were broken, there will be punishment. I know this: I've talked to General Pete Pace about the subject, who is a proud Marine, and nobody is more concerned about these allegations than the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is full of men and women who are honorable people who understand rules of war. And if, in fact, these allegations are true, the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture, that proud culture will be reinforced, and that those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060531-1.html
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
What's got into you lately, sinkspur? I haven't seen anybody here say that these allegations are not serious. These are obviously VERY serious allegations.
Some people here (ahem) are already building gallows for the accused Marines, while others of us are more prone to give the Marines the benefit of the doubt in the face of a report from stinking TIME magazine, a report which, by the way, depended on some mysterious "Iraqi civil rights group" as a primary source. But either way, I believe that everyone agrees that the allegations are serious.
We will only have a better idea of what actually happened and whether the allegations have any truth to them when all official investigations are complete, and maybe not until the trials (if there are any) are over.
Here's a link from a New Zealand rag:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10384510
That is black and white. There is no 'counter-accusation' in calling a lie a lie.
This is not confusion. It is deceit.
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.