Posted on 02/21/2009 12:33:41 PM PST by Gondring
Story Highlights
(CNN) -- A U.S. Army medic was sentenced Friday to life in prison with the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering four detainees in Iraq, a U.S. military spokesman in Germany said.
Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr., 28, was convicted on two counts of murder and premeditated murder for his role in the 2007 Baghdad area killings.
Leahy was downgraded to private, his pay will be forfeited and he'll get a dishonorable discharge if he is ever released from prison. The sentence was handed down Friday night.
Two other soldiers also face courts-martial in the case, said military spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
And what will they do with prisoners when Barry has his way and all detention centers are closed?
“This tragic story underlines why it is necessary to kill and keep killing until no enemy combatants are still moving.”
If that became the standard policy of the United States we would no longer be the United States and many GIs and veterans such as me would already be dead, or would be engaged in combat against your regime.
Even in the rare, behind enemy lines, small unit such as LRRP/LRS the possible killing of captives is dreaded and is not discussed openly (it is discussed privately among the teams, as is having to possibly kill a wounded team member).
My first question exactly.
Should’ve gotten death.
You are imagining a sick fantasy of a United States that implements a policy of no enemy taken alive in war.
We don’t play that way even against insurgents and guerrillas such as our 70 year indian wars in the west.
Someone could argue it was the same thing as a firing squad.
I'd say the firing squad's about right.
I wouldn't either and I was in the military and sat on several Courts Martials, though none like this. These days, a guy on the battlefield has to review the rules of engagement, radio some fat-a$$ed desk jockey (maybe in Washington) and consult a lawyer just before returning fire. It's ridiculous and no way to conduct warfare. I'm guessing Black Jack Pershing or George Patton would put up with these rules.
“I’m guessing Black Jack Pershing or George Patton would put up with these rules.”
Are you accusing those men of murdering prisoners?
“We don’t play that way even against insurgents and guerrillas such as our 70 year indian wars in the west.”
I was quite surprised when watching some History channel show about WWII and fighting on the Pacific Islands. A couple of the old marines mentioned how they did not take prisoners - “we weren’t set up for that”. Very matter of factly stated. Even coming out of their caves with white flags, etc.
In a doctors office once I browsed a coffee table book about Medics throughout history. Lots of big pictures, etc. One medic told of going into a concentration camp to help the prisoners and they found several of the guards that had not been able to flee before the Allies came. They rounded them up in the square and the medics shot them on the spot.
I guess I always envisioned WW II like the movies - heroic, gallantry, fighting by the “rules”, etc. But, just like any other war “War is Hell”.
You're confused. I never said any such thing.
Anyway, good luck with whatever you're smoking.
Which would violate the Geneva Conventions, of which we are an HCP.
You can read post 22 and see that I know about exceptions, even acceptable ones although they are never codified as legal.
In every war there are atrocities, and there are especially small incidence’s which quietly go away for the winning and even losing armies because of the fog of war and the lack of priority when there is so much else to do after a war, but nonetheless it is also often found out and convictions won.
None of this has anything to do with the idiotic idea of the United States dropping all rules of law and just killing all captives as a matter of policy.
“The problem was that prisoners were taken in the first place. For what possible reason? Prisoner exchange, lol? This tragic story underlines why it is necessary to kill and keep killing until no enemy combatants are still moving.”
You are the weirdo here that must be smoking something.
It is you that wants to change America and it’s military to something that it has never done, would never tolerate, and never will do.
Defending the United States and it’s permanent and historical military practices as regards prisoners is not the unusual or new, or outrageous position.
Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. You know that. It would not apply.
These ‘prisoners of war’ are not regular army soldiers. They are terrorists and do not fall under the Geneva Convention.
Are those quote marks around the words prisoners of war, they aren’t mine.
Generals Pershing and George Patton did not execute their prisoners as you implied.
You have the wrong person. I never mentioned Pershing or Patton. reread the posts.
Sorry, I saw that long name and didn’t double check.
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.