Posted on 07/05/2006 3:33:11 PM PDT by pissant
First off, the information in the Affidavit and the MSM regarding this incident in Muhmudiyah does not look good for Steven Green or his alleged conspirators. If he or they are guilty of this crime, then I pray that the Military comes down on them like a ton bricks. The description of what happened is beyond disgusting and evil.
Having said that, I will continue to give the benefit of the doubt to Steven Green and the others, until they confess in a military court or are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So in the interim, I will try to do my best, like on the Haditha case, to poke holes in allegations, and to publicize the work of others doing the same thing.
In regards to the affidavit (AD) used to charge Steven Green, I have a couple of questions/observations. You can click on the URL above to see the affidavit.
Questions:
In Item #5 in the AD, the CID investigation states that 3 men approached checkpoint 1 (TCP#1) on 3/12/2006 at 5:30 PM and reported that a family had been killed in their house and that it was believed to have been done by Anti Iraq forces or "others".
In Item #12, SOI5 (source of information) says that on 3/11/2006 an Iraqi approached him and told him the house had been burned. The Iraqi said four were dead and one had been raped. An HOUR later, Iraqi army personnel and four US soldiers, including SOI5, went to the scene and presumably took the photos.
So did the event happen on 3/11 or 3/12? If SOI5 is correct, then the bodies would have been in the morgue by 3/12 and a 3/11 report would have been discovered by the CID.
Item #6 says that during a combat stress debriefing on 6/20/06 it was determined that these members of the 4th Infantry division commited this crime. Yet all the previous reports say that two guys were debriefed, neither an eyewitness. One said that he overheard guys talking about it, and another said that he heard that the guys burned their clothes. And it was not until 6/24/06 that the invistigation from CIS started. Therefore Item 6 is factually wrong to say it was "determined" on 6/20/06 that our men did this.
In Item #8, SOI1 says SOI2 and KP1 (known participant) changed clothes before heading to the house. Then he says that SOI2, SOI3, SG and KP1 all burned their clothes when they got back. First, SOI3 supposedly stayed guard at the door fo the house, so why would he burn his clothes? And if he was in uniform, would he really burn his uniform at a checkpoint and stand there in his skivvies? 2nd, was SOI1 really dumb enough to man the checkpoint by himself while these guys went raping and pillaging, especially since one of the M4s they took belonged to SOI1?
In Item #10, SOI2 states "Green went into the bedroom to keep the rest of the family there" and that "KP1 threw a woman to the floor". After Green killed the family, SOI2 states that he witnessed "Green and KP1 rape the woamn that SOI3 had thrown to the floor". So who threw the rape victim to the floor?? SOI3 was supposedly standing guard outside the house.
In Item #11, SOI3 says that SOI2 ordered him to toss the AK-47 used by Green into the canal. SOI2 does not mention (items #9 and #10) that he asked SOI3 to get rid of AK-47.
Item #13 is the photo evidence. If this photo evidence was taken 3/11/06 by the Iraqi and US soldiers that went to investigate per item #12 (SOI5's version) then something is terribly amiss about the timing of this story.
It has deep roots in St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Is that you?
That is not an apology.
Huh?
Thank you both for your input.
Gotta hit the long and dusty trail for the night.
Then it's agreed, the MSM has an agenda. >>>> Yes.
And the way they report the Iraqi witnesses as gospel truth >>>I think this would be better worded as "the way they display ... witnessess.
and always are skeptical of anything the military says >>>> is an abomination. >>>> I had to look 3 times to figure this out. This goes all the way back to: "the way they report"?
They're coming out the woodwork OmahaFields!
Me as well pissant. Goodnight!
"Out of the woodwork" only shows how far the Republican party has drifted; it left me. I've been consistantly calling for jus ad bellum my entire length of my membership here.
The "Just War" theory needs revamping in light of al-Qaeda and its brethren.
First of all, watch your language. You're too accustomed to leftist blogs where they let profanities fly.
No one on this thread has been talking about "BushBots" either. The discussion is about the case in question.
My original observation stands. You state your sympathy for the enemy in your tagline. You're anti-war.
I bet Aquinas was aware of the Hashshashin when he wrote. Islamic terrorism is not new to the 21st century; Aquinas was quite familiar with terrorism. And let's not forget the Augustine lived right when Rome fell to the Barbarians - hardly fair fighters.
I am no expert but it seems we did.
Reason for war: UN had defaulted leaving us as the major UN member. Moral authority required us to enforce the legally prescribed actions.
Length of War: We won it about as quickly as you can.
Minimize damage to country: We damaged probably the least of any invading army.
"Bullcrap" is a very mild profanity; one which one hears in everyday conversation. Furthermore, I have never been - and never intend to join - to a "leftist blog."
You state your sympathy for the enemy in your tagline.
My sympathy for the enemy is rooted in the fact that they are men bearing the image of God. That places limits on what means are availible to fight them - I dare not dehumanize my enemy.
You're anti-war.
Wrong again. I supported (and still do support) the decision to invade Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I support the decision to invade Iraq based on the information we had in hand at the time. I support our troops to the extent that they fight honorably. But, my support for the war does not mean I blindly support every decision by the command structure, nor every action by servicemen. A lot of missteps have been made, and some apparent war crimes have been alleged. I oppose the mistakes and the war crimes, not the war.
The Just War theory, as understood by you and many of its other proponents, is a death sentence to the United States, since it insists upon placing our well-being in the hands of the corrupt and freedom-hating United Nations.
Pope John Paul II made the same mistake, insisting the George Bush get UN approbation for the Iraq invasion. What nonsense; requiring approval from a corrupt institution like the UN.
What war crimes? No war crimes have been proven.
Are you American?
Have you ever served in our military?
Oh and, by the way, I do not hear your expletive in every day conversation.
You could find any number of "reasons" for your sympathy for the enemy, but please do not use my God as one of them.
Let's all be nice. If pissants and I can be nice to each other for an whole thread, it can be done. I feel like I have one arm tied behind my back, though.
Thats why Abu Gharib resulted in convictions, eh?
Are you American?
Yes.
Have you ever served in our military?
Not yet - but trying to. Wasn't able to in high school or college (overweight), but that is no longer a problem.
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.