Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Officers Likely to Be Charged in Haditha Killings, Sources Say
ABC News ^ | 6/1/06 | Jonathan Karl

Posted on 06/01/2006 8:15:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Proud_USA_Republican

If the charges are unwarranted, why doesn't the military refute them? Why did President Bush refer to the investigation yesterday, rather than saying terrorists killed the Iraqis, or the Marines are innocent?


41 posted on 06/01/2006 9:42:41 PM PDT by eddie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The cleaning out of that shithole was and IS Priority #1.
And it will continue Treason Media or no.


42 posted on 06/01/2006 9:43:11 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: eddie65
"If the charges are unwarranted, why doesn't the military refute them? "

If anyone in the military says anything about this incident after the investigation begins, the whole thing would have to be thrown out due to undo command influence.

43 posted on 06/01/2006 9:45:35 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Johansen

---We are going to prosecute officers who had nothing to do with the killing, had nothing to do with a cover up, had no knowledge of the crime or cover up?
What exactly will they be charged with: being too focused on winning the war and keeping their men alive? ---

They will be charged with being disposable.


44 posted on 06/01/2006 9:46:33 PM PDT by claudiustg (¡En español, por favor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eddie65
If the charges are unwarranted, why doesn't the military refute them? Why did President Bush refer to the investigation yesterday, rather than saying terrorists killed the Iraqis, or the Marines are innocent?

Because it is the military that is providing the anonymous sources for the media, leaking to blunt the effect of the report when it is released.

Nobody around here wants to see this, but it is the Marine Corps, itself, that is admitting that these attacks took place, by dribs and drabs on a daily basis.

45 posted on 06/01/2006 9:50:55 PM PDT by sinkspur ( Don Cheech. Vito Corleone would like to meet you......Vito Corleone.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

People in the military have been speaking anonymously about this case recently, which is definitely after the investigation began. They have not refuted the charges, though, only given them more credence. Why is that?


46 posted on 06/01/2006 9:53:31 PM PDT by eddie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Thanks, please remember one of the girls they interviewed, she looks to be a teenager. She says, "I want them, meaning the Americans, TORTURED and killed". I can't tell you how livid I am. The media of course keeps breathlessly reporting this as if it is a fact. This is the same town where the terrorists are beheading people all the time and she wants our Marines TORTURED!!!!


47 posted on 06/01/2006 9:55:45 PM PDT by 2rightsleftcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

I don't know which video you're referring to, but the photographs were definitely taken by the Marines. That has not been disputed by anyone, even anonymously, and has been confirmed by the mother of one of the Marines who took the pictures.


48 posted on 06/01/2006 9:57:10 PM PDT by eddie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
From what I've read, the video is just of the bodies of the women and children who had been shot while in a kneeling position. The ASSUMPTION has been made that it was the Marines who did it. As far as I have heard, there is NO proof of this.

Here is my point: IF this is a video of a massacre that supposedly took place in November 2005, why did it not surface until March 2006? Sunnis would have had this video on the web within hours!!

Personally I believe it did not surface until locals decided to create it! Why would they decide this? Because they KNOW the western media is gullible, easily manipulated and would take the word of terrorists over their own military and governments.

Or, maybe, a media person or two is directly involved in a fabrication (ala Blather)?

49 posted on 06/01/2006 9:57:18 PM PDT by technomage (NEVER underestimate the depths to which liberals will stoop for power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: technomage

The video is of the "carnage". According to the Iraqis, this video is the scene of the "massacre".

There are HUGE problems with this whole thing. Check out the other threads about the Haditha doctor--the one who changed the death certificates from shrapnel wounds to close-range bullet holes. He is seriously anti-American and has an axe to grind. Sweetness & Light is all over this. The doctor was previously detained by US troops, and the reporter who broke this story, he was also detained. The "eye-witnesses" are all Iraqis.

Also the eye-witness stories have changed and evolved and most importantly--the bodies have never been examined! The investigators want to exhume the bodies for examination--to even establish how they died, and the Iraqis are denying this request.

Check out the thread about "Blood Money, Lies and Videotape" from Front Page Mag as well. This whole frame the military for massacre was done to the Brits.

I am seriously skeptical of these allegations.




50 posted on 06/01/2006 9:57:53 PM PDT by Shelayne (Here's a novel idea--let's wait for the facts to come out before we rush to judgment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Shelayne
I am seriously skeptical of these allegations.

And yet, our Commander In Chief did not give a strong defense of these Marines. No 'innocent until proven guilty'. Rather he says he is disturbed by media reports of the event. Media reports?? Is he kidding?

Very disappointing.

51 posted on 06/01/2006 10:00:49 PM PDT by technomage (NEVER underestimate the depths to which liberals will stoop for power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: technomage
This is just an enemy attack by other means with the assistance of unpatriotic leftist news media and politicians.

The question of whether innocent civilians were killed is irrelevant.

I guess FDR was a war criminal for Dresden and Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We will never win a war again as long as a POTUS lets the media and his political opponents continue to do this.

Lincoln and FDR put politicians and the press in jail for a lot less.

Pity our brave soldiers are dying and a bunch of clowns are running the PR war at home.

52 posted on 06/01/2006 10:06:14 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: technomage

He cannot say anything strongly in their defense because anything he says could jeapordize the case as "undue influence". He is disturbed by the allegations. As we all should be. Unfortunately he cannot say more. None of the military leaders can either. I bet Rumsfeld wants to personally choke every news outlet that has breathlessly reported this.

I know I want to.


53 posted on 06/01/2006 10:06:42 PM PDT by Shelayne (Here's a novel idea--let's wait for the facts to come out before we rush to judgment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: eddie65
"People in the military have been speaking anonymously about this case recently,

Regarding the last post, their are no anonymous commanders in the Marines, or the DoD.

" which is definitely after the investigation began.

The investigation began, because the Marine documents contained bogus info. When Time asked, they were told the families were killed by an IED. See my above link to xins. It will take you to an original story on the original release from Camp Blue Diamond.

" They have not refuted the charges, though, only given them more credence. Why is that?

It's called undo command influence. If anyone in authority says anything, it is said that- the command thinks the outcome should be this. It's their legal precedent/code.

54 posted on 06/01/2006 10:06:50 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: eddie65
People in the military have been speaking anonymously about this case recently

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement sounds? Could you please cite one of these sources?

[Anonymous sources] have not refuted the charges, though, only given them more credence

Do you realize how asinine that statement is?

55 posted on 06/01/2006 10:07:29 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Shelayne
I am skeptical of the allegations by those wanting them to be true as well.


56 posted on 06/01/2006 10:07:52 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: technomage

Tell you what I'm sick of...your stupid attacks against a President who literally cannot defend the Marines.

He cannot speak in terms of the investigation, he can only speak in terms of media reports. Anyone would be troubled if they go by the media reports. DUH. Because he cannot exert command influence under the rules of the Military or it would compromise its legal system.

General Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld are following the same path. To be equal, go ahead and attack them, too, hotshot.


57 posted on 06/01/2006 10:09:17 PM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: eddie65
That has not been disputed by anyone, even anonymously,

Actually, I happen to have an anonymous source that disputes it.

and has been confirmed by the mother of one of the Marines who took the pictures

Oh, she was there when the pictures were taken? Unbelievable.

58 posted on 06/01/2006 10:10:48 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

I want him OUT! I want that traitor OFF my TV and his bile removed from the airwaves.

Other than that, nice hat. ;^)


59 posted on 06/01/2006 10:12:55 PM PDT by Shelayne (Here's a novel idea--let's wait for the facts to come out before we rush to judgment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: technomage
>>And yet, our Commander In Chief did not give a strong defense of these Marines. No 'innocent until proven guilty'. Rather he says he is disturbed by media reports of the event. Media reports?? Is he kidding?

Very disappointing.<<

He may know something. But me, I just have the press and I'm operating on innocent till proven guilty.

As a separate issue from these particular marines, I support prosecutions for indiscriminate killing of civilians if there is intent - but we need to bend over backwards to give presumption of innocence and fair trials and to clear their names with the same vigor if they are found innocent.
60 posted on 06/01/2006 10:13:00 PM PDT by gondramB (We may have done a lill' bit of fightin amongst ourselves but you outside people best leave us alone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson