Skip to comments.
Soldier says ordered to delete Fort Hood videos
AP ^
| 10-15-2010
Posted on 10/15/2010 9:35:23 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: earlJam
Every cell phone is now a video camera. How could they prohibit videos? They can't. Which is most places these days prohibit unauthorized photographing.
21
posted on
10/15/2010 9:50:57 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
("Give me a secret. Bring me a sign. Give me a reason to walk through fire.")
To: Nachum
“High up the food chain did this order go?”
Good question. I don’t know the USCMJ at all, but in most jurisdictions this would constitute an intentional destruction of evidence, which is usually a felony.
I would be very surprised if it is not in this case as well.
To: My Favorite Headache
It is illegal to destroy evidence, and was therefore an illegal order.
23
posted on
10/15/2010 9:52:06 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
To: wilco200
Post it to youtube, send it to friendly media sources, back it up to flash drive, put it in a safe deposit box.....then delete it.That was my thought but after all that THEN offer it to the officer so he can be sure of orders being followed by deleting it himself.
24
posted on
10/15/2010 9:52:29 AM PDT
by
bgill
(K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
To: My Favorite Headache
Well, this is certainly troubling.
On the other hand, there must have been several hundred witnesses to what happened. Are they saying they need a video to convict a multiple murderer who shot his victims before numerous witnesses?
25
posted on
10/15/2010 9:53:35 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius.)
To: KarlInOhio
This is the Associated Press, in which a frigate may be referred to as a “battleship”, and a B2 may be referred to as a “fighter”.
They are idiots, and 99.99% of them have never served a day in the military.
26
posted on
10/15/2010 9:55:10 AM PDT
by
rlmorel
("Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean whatever we are still permitted to do.")
To: Cicero
The video could show things that people didn't recognize at the time. For example, the order he shot people in, where he got his weapons and even the participation of an accomplice. I'm not saying that any of those mattered, but there is no way the sergeant who ordered the deletion of the video could have known if it would have been useful.
27
posted on
10/15/2010 9:58:01 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Grblb blabt unt mipt speeb!! Oot piffoo blaboo...)
To: montag813
“1st Amendment applies here”
Does it? I’m not sure. I hope someone with a military legal background would comment as to what rights one gives up when they join the military.
To: Clioman
The question would have been properly objected to as calling for hearsay.
To: equalitybeforethelaw
It’s also an order to destroy evidence. Surely that’s not a lawful order.
To: Carry_Okie
Does this also mean the person who gave the order is guilty of obstruction of justice?
I really want to know where this order came from. Did it come from Obama and Holder? Obama has his fingerprints all over anything having to do with soft treatment of terrorists, even aiding and abetting them (like leaving the border wide open for them to walk in)
31
posted on
10/15/2010 10:01:01 AM PDT
by
justsaynomore
(We've got some altering and abolishing to do! - H. Cain)
To: My Favorite Headache
Investigate right up the chaon of command to see where the order originated.Make the buck stop where it should.
Secondly, if the video was ordered destroyed, then the assumption should be that the accused did indeed do the murdering,we have enoughlive witnesses to that effect. Death penalty should definitely be sought.
32
posted on
10/15/2010 10:01:30 AM PDT
by
Candor7
(Obama . fascist info..http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
To: My Favorite Headache
Probably policy after the prison fiasco in Iraq.
33
posted on
10/15/2010 10:01:36 AM PDT
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: My Favorite Headache
Prosecutors have not said whether they'll seek the death penalty if the case goes to trial.Something is seriously wrong with the way this is written.
34
posted on
10/15/2010 10:02:57 AM PDT
by
Texas Fossil
(Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
To: FrankR
Noncommissioned Officers have always been able to issue lawful orders.
To: Carling
See, that’s the mistake all the witnesses made - they said he was yelling “Allahu Akbar!”, proving this was an Islamic Jihad incident.
Actually, there was a LONG line at the commissary, and the guy snapped. He was actually yelling
“all a’ you at the snack bar!”.
It had nothing to do with Islam at all - just a long wait.
36
posted on
10/15/2010 10:03:58 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: justsaynomore
Does this also mean the person who gave the order is guilty of obstruction of justice? From what I can discern, yes it does.
37
posted on
10/15/2010 10:04:30 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
To: My Favorite Headache
38
posted on
10/15/2010 10:04:44 AM PDT
by
Freddd
(CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
To: My Favorite Headache
charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder I posted this on another thread a couple of days ago. Here again is a case of some are more equal than others.
If you are Scott Peterson you are charged with murder in the first degree for the pregnant woman and murder in the second degree for the unborn child.
If you are a soldier of allah, such as Nidal Malik Hasan, hiding out in the US Army awaiting an opportunity to commit islamic jihad, then the unborn child of the pregnant woman who was murdered is never mentioned and he is only charged with massacring 13 people instead of 14.
39
posted on
10/15/2010 10:07:35 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
To: montag813
Everyone knows that the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply to the military...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson