Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: My Favorite Headache
High up the food chain did this order go?
2 posted on
10/15/2010 9:37:50 AM PDT by
Nachum
(The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
To: My Favorite Headache
his noncommissioned officer ordered him to destroy the two videos on Nov. 5
Demote the noncomm to Private, and send him to duty in Northwest Alaska.
3 posted on
10/15/2010 9:38:13 AM PDT by
BigEdLB
(Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
To: My Favorite Headache
We can’t have him screaming “Allah Akbar” being captured on film, can we?
4 posted on
10/15/2010 9:38:21 AM PDT by
Carling
(Remember November)
To: My Favorite Headache
Accomplice, or just an idiot?
5 posted on
10/15/2010 9:38:21 AM PDT by
Semper911
(When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
To: My Favorite Headache
Are videos allowed of military bases in general?
6 posted on
10/15/2010 9:38:52 AM PDT by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: My Favorite Headache
I know an illegal order when I hear one, and I would have told the NCO absolutely no way am I ‘deleting this’.
But thats just me.
7 posted on
10/15/2010 9:39:04 AM PDT by
Badeye
(I can see NOVEMBER from My HOUSE.)
To: My Favorite Headache
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.
9 posted on
10/15/2010 9:41:10 AM PDT by
wilco200
(11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
To: My Favorite Headache
Why did he comply? Was it a Army-issued cell phone? 1st Amendment applies here, imho. He should have refused the “order”, which should never have been given. the officer should be disciplined.
11 posted on
10/15/2010 9:43:30 AM PDT by
montag813
(http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
To: My Favorite Headache
BTW, I believe that was an illegal order. Officers and NCOs have no charge over privately held property of enlisted soldiers. Just sayin.
To: My Favorite Headache
Sneakyman Inc. is being exposed by the very technology they help create.
14 posted on
10/15/2010 9:45:43 AM PDT by
yesca
(..belief is the enemy)
To: My Favorite Headache
Since when can noncomms issue legal orders?
15 posted on
10/15/2010 9:47:34 AM PDT by
FrankR
(You are only obligated to obama to the extent you accept his handouts.)
To: My Favorite Headache
17 posted on
10/15/2010 9:48:09 AM PDT by
Diogenesis
('Freedom is the light of all sentient beings.' - Optimus Prime)
To: My Favorite Headache
I could understand confiscating it and handing it to the MPs, but ordering deleted is destruction of evidence of a crime. Stupid on every level.
was ordered by an officer to delete both videos, a military court heard Friday.
Odd wording. I know the official term for ranks E-4 and above is "non-commissioned officer", but usually officer by itself refers only to commissioned officers of rank O-1 and above.
18 posted on
10/15/2010 9:48:17 AM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Grblb blabt unt mipt speeb!! Oot piffoo blaboo...)
To: My Favorite Headache
The footage could have been vital evidence at the military hearing to decide if Maj. Nidal Hasan should stand trial in the shootings. Which is exactly the reason the non com gave the order. But...from whom did he receive his orders from?
19 posted on
10/15/2010 9:48:43 AM PDT by
Bloody Sam Roberts
("Give me a secret. Bring me a sign. Give me a reason to walk through fire.")
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: 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: 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: 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.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson