Haditha: Five Marines expected to be charged in killings
posted at 6:46 pm on November 24, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Two months ago Time said there would be six to eight. Now NPR’s hearing five. Take three minutes and listen to their report; it’s solid and concisely presents the key issues, including whether to charge them with murder or criminal negligence and what the Corps’s motive might have been in tipping Murtha to this six months ago.
Bush and Rove must have been praying before the election that Navy investigators wouldn’t bring charges until afterwards. Wish granted. Now investigators are poised to bring charges just as Iraq is on the verge of all-out civil war and the Democrats are drawing up subpoenas. It’s the perfect storm.
The Times will have to increase the size of the paper just to fit all the bad news in on the front page.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
It’s almost a shame the charged Marines can’t get a civilian criminal trial instead of a court martial. Rules of evidence are far different, and in a civilian court the lack of evidence would prevent a conviction without question. A court martial panel is also much more free to convict based on testimony and their judgemental opinion of the case presentation.
God bless the Marines, God grant them justice.
Freelancer on November 24, 2006 at 6:58 PM
Trolls, I await your calls of “cop out” and never putting responsibility on Bush, but whatever, you know what happened. If the terrorists hadn’t known (and been saying right along) that if terrorism would cause the Dems to politicize the war and be talking about “exit strategies” almost since the beginning, the situation wouldn’t be what it is. I’m not saying it would be complete peace by any means, but let’s get real. First of all, we’re only losing people because we’re on the ground trying to fight this on the nice. But the vast majority of continued and increasinging violence is a result of the “bad guys” knowing that they can force a retreat, because they’ve heard the Dems all along, and claim a huge victory for jihad when we do. Have you cut and runners considered what will happen when you get your wish? Iraqis will just fight amongst themselves and we’ll all live happily ever after right? Oh wait, because I beat you to your predictable comments, instead you’ll say “no, now we’ve created terrorists who previously didn’t want to kill us…. but the hundreds of millions of others still don’t pose a threat”. This entire situation is really depressing.
RightWinged on November 24, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Its official what I feared. And why I am upset at the republican party.
The democrats will fight tooth and nail to protect terrorists “Rights” and want Sheik Mohammed to have access to the US justice system instead of the US military tribunials
YET these same democrats want to hunt down and persecute our military under the SAME system they just decry as too “Unfair” to try terrorists under !
Think about it. Its OK to try US military personel under US military tribunals (Which I have no problem with. If they are guilty they will be punish if not they will go free) YET its a horrible injustic to try terrorists under the same system.
And I weep that the republican party sat on its butt on this issue and let the dems slide. Now we will see Murtha and his ilk go on military witch hunts to persecute US Service personel while at the same time they will be moving a dancing Sheik Mohammed to a US Court where a jury of 12 people WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SHEIK MOHAMMED as to prejudice their veiws will have the final say if he lives or dies or even goes free.
This is the democratic form of “Justic” and it makes me puke.
William Amos on November 24, 2006 at 7:27 PM
I’m really sick of seeing this kind of distortionist crap. People who want to see basic human rights and basic due process because there are likely a huge number of people like this guy being “detained” and tortured who are not terrorists. Thanks to the current regime we’re not trying to discover who is and is not guilty because the prisoners can’t get a trial. If we keep this up we’re no better than the former Soviet Union.
Constantine on November 24, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Mr.Amos, I honestly hope and pray that everyone who reads this blog, reads and re-reads your opinion. It needs to be understood and it needs broadcasted to every republican we can button hole!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on November 24, 2006 at 9:20 PM
Ah truth hurts dont it ? And it is the truth
William Amos on November 24, 2006 at 9:38 PM
Be prepared for the phase “terrorist support” to be plaster all over Murtha and others who want to support giving the terrorists “rights’
Its a fair and honest argument
William Amos on November 24, 2006 at 9:41 PM
You want to talk distortion? Yes, apparently a mistake was made in that ONE INSTANCE you cite, but YOU ARE DISTORTING (as is the NY Times headline you link to), implying WE tortured him or violated his human rights. So stick your distortion accusations…. well you know the rest.
Also, you say “likely” there’s a “huge” number of guys like him. Well, I guess that settles it. Let them all free and don’t you dare waterboard or make them uncomfortable while interrogating them, even if it means saving the lives of thousands. (pssst… even though we don’t torture, it’s “likely” that Pakistan torture techniques lead to stopping the UK to US planes blowing up over the Atlantic plot… but damn it, what about the terrorists’ rights!?)
RightWinged on November 24, 2006 at 10:02 PM
What funny is Constantine didnt even mention that it was CANADA that did his example and not the US.
And supposedly this “Tortured” guy got out of a syrian prison to complain about abuse ? What part of a made up story are we suppose to believe ? We already know AL Queda has told its members when captured to scream “Torture !”
William Amos on November 24, 2006 at 10:56 PM
If the U.S. turns a prisoner over to a third party (Syria) we know will torture him, we’re guilty of allowing the torture to occur; it’s a principle known as “aiding and abetting.” Too complicated for you?
So you’re suggesting the only two options are detaining/torturing OR setting them free? How much sense does that make? Not to mention that it’s been repeatedly proven that people will say anything to avoid torture, making the information extracted highly dubious. And you don’t even believe we should prove people really are terrorists before we torture them? You would have really enjoyed the old East Germany.
U.S. officials apprehended the man and rendered him based on bad information from Canada. This is why trials are necessary.
Constantine on November 24, 2006 at 11:24 PM
I’m not sure what the point of repeating myself, and having you further distort and then add distortion to my comments as you just did. I will leave you with this though.
RightWinged on November 24, 2006 at 11:30 PM
RightWinged, I used to joust with Constantine when he was on Ian’s old website. It always amazed me that the libs come to conservative sites (where they are treated with much more respect then they diegn to give us on their troll websites but that’s another story for another day) and tell us that the US is bad & that terrorists need to have their “rights” too. I don’t know what happened in Haditha & neither does Constantine or anyone else except for those that were there. However, it seems to me that as per usual they start turning on each other and whoever is able to get to the prosecution punchbowl first wins the best deal even if things didn’t go down as they say. I guess with the possiblility of a death sentence hanging over their heads and to qoute our good friend COnstantine
. Yes, he has no problems with letting terrorists have their rights but isn’t so sure about our own service members that keep his butt safe so he can peck away here at Hot Air.
Catie96706 on November 24, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Forgot to add Mr. Amos, you are so correct!
Catie96706 on November 24, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Please, don’t feed the troll
It isn’t intelligent. It isn’t honest. It isn’t well-educated. It only repeats the same lib-Dem-Kos talking points. It specializes in blending opinions with lies to make its lies less obvious and glaring.
It only seeks to insult and distract, just like the departed ‘Grebrook’ ( peace NOT be upon him )
Please, ignore the troll. Semper Fi.
Janos Hunyadi on November 24, 2006 at 11:50 PM
If I’ve misrepresented something you’ve said, please correct me. I want to have an honest discussion.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 12:01 AM
From your article Mr Constantine. The US only sent the man home to the county he was a citisen of. He was neither a US citisen nor a Canadien Citisen. His deportation was legal. You want to afgue the law and in this case the law was carried out.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 12:09 AM
So many of you conservatives love to tell us what we think, Coulter-style (”liberals hate America!”) in order to bolster your own positions. As we saw in the last election, that tactic is running out of steam. I love America. I hate what some have tried to make us: a nation that will betray its principles of freedom, democracy and human rights in order to gain an added (false) feeling of security.
I believe soldiers especially should have the same rights as those in a civil criminal trial. The fact that they don’t is a mystery to me (and most people, I would guess).
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Constantine & other liberals like him won’t admit that they do support terrorists “rights” in public, because if his party did say that, then Democrats never again will be in the majority of both house & senate. liberals will always side with the terrorists & will always be loyal to Osama Bin Landen & Al-Qaeda than their own country
Starblazer on November 25, 2006 at 12:47 AM
btw Constantine, these people are not human beings, they’re animals.
Starblazer on November 25, 2006 at 12:49 AM
corretion – liberals here in the U.S. will always be loyal to Osama Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda than to this country
Starblazer on November 25, 2006 at 12:50 AM
Constantine, please don’t give us your faux support of the troops. I know from before you have none. Also, I know that you think all terrorists should have rights from your previous stay on Expose The Left. I know your past and it’s not pretty. I don’t put words in your mouth-you do it yourself with your own petty “hate” America things that supposedly we say for you. That’s what I hate about libs they never want to step up to the plate and admit that those of us on the conservative side may not like everything about various things in this great land, we just say it nicer and not as hateful as you do. Now, go back to Kos and have a nice day-somewhere else.
Catie96706 on November 25, 2006 at 12:51 AM
While I was warned not to feed the troll, I always have trouble with it…
Really? I’ve busted you for distorting (while you were accusing us of distorting) already… But I’ll make a deal with you, k? You don’t post for a week if I prove you misrepresented something I said. Agreed? Good. Earlier, in response to a comment of mine, you said:
I never suggested such a thing, and nothing I said can be interpretted as such. I never talked about options of military tribunals or trials, indefinite detainment, etc. etc. I didn’t talk about any of that. And I certainly never said that we torture, because as far as I or anyone else knows, we don’t.
See ya in a week Constantine.
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 1:04 AM
RightWinged, I know we shouldn’t feed the troll but sometimes it’s so much fun! ;)
Catie96706 on November 25, 2006 at 1:07 AM
Scrolling up really isn’t that hard.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 1:18 AM
Troll, it’s also not ‘that hard’ to STFU and go away
If Kos and the DU get old, try Huffington: just your style
Janos Hunyadi on November 25, 2006 at 1:26 AM
Your point?
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 1:26 AM
(my “your point?” comment is directed at Constipated because he/she gave some quotes that don’t support his/her point)
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 1:27 AM
RightWinged, he never does. Similarly while on ETL, he would post in this fashion and continue to say that we were evil conservatives & the world would end because of conservatives and George Bush as President. Nothing ever supports his point other than the fact that there should only be the liberals like him.
Catie96706 on November 25, 2006 at 1:30 AM
But then where would I go for the opportunity to converse with intellectuals like yourself?
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 1:30 AM
To speed things ahead Constantine, you obviously feel that waterboarding is torture, and I don’t. So I think we can agree, you won’t go away for a week like I hoped?
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 1:37 AM
Not only do I not believe that, if you can find anyplace I ever said such a thing, I will go away. Good luck with that.
- First and foremost I never condemn an entire group of people for the actions/beliefs of a few (or even a majority)… though some people here do their best to make a career out of it.
- I don’t believe conservatives are evil or I wouldn’t be here.
- I don’t think Dubya will end the world, but his incompetence has made it a more dangerous place.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 1:54 AM
Question answered. If you can’t see the point, it’s useless to continue this particular discussion.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 1:56 AM
ETL is no longer active so you’re safe but I remember what you said.
Catie96706 on November 25, 2006 at 2:02 AM
Dude, you’ve got to refresh your page or something
As for your discussion with Catie, I found this:
Followed by a conspiracy theorist rant about PNAC.
You may not have called him evil (in that thread) as Catie said, but you might as well have. I mean, the fictional person you describe certainly sounds evil, no?
By the way, you ranted and ranted and ranted about the State of the Union “16 words”… How they were a lie, how Bush knew it, how despite the fact that he was citing British intel, they all relied on forged documents, how Joe Wilson wasn’t a liar, etc. etc.
Sorry I missed that thread at the time. But say goodnight Constantine. Oh, and not only that, but Bush’s assertion that Saddam had sought significant quantities of uranium seems correct. He never claimed that Saddam bought it, which was the “liar” card Wilson tried to pull saying “Saddam didn’t buy it”. Liberals were to stupid to understand the important difference in “sought” and “bought”. Do you understand that Saddam not buying something, doesn’t mean he didn’t seek it? No, I don’t suppose a liberal would.
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 2:20 AM
Was it known that Syria would torture him? In general, can any Syrian national (or criminal) be deported back to Syria?
On what basis are you extrapolating the given cases to a “huge number of people”? Not to excuse them individually, but I expect that in just about any system there will be mistakes and abuse, particularly during war.
Is war merely a “civil” police action? As I understand it, historically, this has never been the case because war is so different from civil life. As applied to the current war, it is also doubtful that the unlawful enemy combatants can be considered soldiers. In any case, I do agree that there should be some form of habeas corpus, and I think there is.
Kevin on November 25, 2006 at 2:24 AM
I stated fact: the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq since the 90’s, and many of them became prominent in the Bush administration. So I guess it’s a coincidence we invaded Iraq based on flimsy evidence (now disproved) of a direct threat to the U.S. and an AQ connection?
No, such a person is a self-serving a**hole; but what Catie claims I said was “(they) were evil conservatives & the world would end because of conservatives and George Bush as President.” Which I clearly didn’t say.
Timing is so important. Check the date on the factcheck.org article: August 2004. It wasn’t until June 2006 we learned that the NIC had determined “the Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest” before Bush gave the speech; but this is simply the tip of the iceberg. Why did Bush continue making this claim prior to the address even though his own intelligence services were telling him otherwise? Seems he was trying to sell the American public on a war he knew they would never support unless he played up the threat.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 3:35 AM
Given the administration’s tendency to not release anybody suspected of terrorist connections, it’s reasonable to assume Mr. Arar was deported specifically for purposes of “aggressive interrogation.”
There are so many detainees who have not had their day in court (that is, nearly all of them) I suppose one could speculate either way.
I understand this hasn’t been the case historically, but it was suggested that I believe suspected terrorists should have more rights to due process than our soldiers, an idea I reject.
That depends on which opinion you choose to believe.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 4:02 AM
Timing isn’t important here, because for one, you chose not to include a link. Two, no sane person would claim FactCheck.org is partisan, and they update their articles when there are developments.
Oh and your next comment, a reply to someone else is vintage liberal.
Your first paragraph talks about “assuming”, your second one talks about “speculating” (after saying that detainees haven’t had “their day in court). And you end with a link to a “human rights” group and discussion of opinion. Classic.
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 4:24 AM
Constantine: STFU and go away you stupid troll!
All: Okay, you’ve all had your fun kicking Constantine in the virtual [gum]balls. Yes, I know the ‘tard deserves each slap you give him.
Yes, he’s pathetic and stupid and disloyal and he lies like a rug.
So, you’ve had your fun. UYou can stop feeding him now.
Just repeat after me: “CONSTANTINE, STFU!”
georgej on November 25, 2006 at 5:34 AM
War is war, it is not civil unrest. War is ugly. Mistakes happen, innocent people are killed. To hesitate in our efforts to win just prolongs the war. Fight to win.
Zorro on November 25, 2006 at 8:23 AM
Im glad Constantine is here he has proven my point over and over again.
Notice not once has he risen to say that “US troops need Habeas Corpus protections” nor has he said “They are innoncent till proven guilty.”
His entire defense has been to argue that TERRORISTS need these protections. He has ran around defending the need for them to have rights.
And you misunderstand my point Constantine. Im not saying that terrorists shouldnt get some legal process. Nor hat they dont have some rights. They just dont have full constitutional rights that US citisens have.
And again with the irony of “If we dont give them legal standings then we are no different than they are” I need to know the last time the Iraqi terrorists gave captured US GIs and Iraqi civilians “Rights” and protections ? Or do they simply execute them right away ?
We have not executed or even tried a single enemy combatant. We have done some very mild aggressive interrogation techniques is all. We are different from them in that we at least took them prisoner and except for a few idiots that have been punished we have treated them well. The same cant be said for the other side.
So please constantine continue on how we need to protect terrorists more and how “rights” are important for NON US citisens. No where in the US constitution does it say they even have rights.
Do you even understand that a foriegn military soldier if captured doesnt get trials by jury ? Can you even show me any example of this happening in our history ? I can site Nuremburg and the Japanese trials of WWII but then you would still lose as they were military tribunals and not trials by jury.
So legally, Morally and ethically the democrats have been repeatedly wrong on this issue.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 8:33 AM
Constantine,
Only if you’re inclined to believe such twaddle, and if you can overlook the fact that Arar was flown to Jordan, not Syria. Why on Earth would the Syrians interrogate an al-Q operative for us?
Pablo on November 25, 2006 at 9:52 AM
Unfortunately for those poor boys, there is no turning back form this. They will be tried, and the system will dictate their collective fate. Despite the outcome, they will never be able to wash the blood from their hands. Their morality and their souls were lost in that desert, fighting a battle they should never have been called upon to fight.
And who cries for the innocent slaughtered that afternoon? There is no mention of the five little girls – ages 14, 10, 5, 3, and 1 – who all died that afternoon. Or the 19 other civilians either gunned down or torn apart by grenades. Who mourns them?
And those poor boys from that Southern California base – I hope you hawks have an apology ready for them.
GregH on November 25, 2006 at 9:55 AM
Greg H, do you have any damnation to spare for the scum that planted the bomb that killed Miguel Terraza, and set this chain of events into motion?
Oh, and do you have a crystal ball that tells you all about what happens to these guys?
Pablo on November 25, 2006 at 10:49 AM
I breaks my heart that we have such brave soldiers protecting such morons like Constipated and GregH… move to Canada already you two moonbats!
Bob on November 25, 2006 at 11:09 AM
These soldiers are being tried Greg. They are having their day in military courts. Yet the actual TERRORISTS have had their day of justice constantly pospone so they can have as much chance as the possible can to get off the hook.
I find it so ironic that American GIs that have been acused of wrongdoing have long had their trials and punishment with not one word of concern from the left about that YET the left runs SCREAMING UNFAIR UNFAIR ! whenever we try to punish a terrorist.
Double standard much ?
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 11:15 AM
“I believe soldiers especially should have the same rights as those in a civil criminal trial.”
“…it was suggested that I believe suspected terrorists should have more rights to due process than our soldiers, an idea I reject.”
Reading comprehension, Mr. Amos.
This is not an old argument, that we should become as bad as the terrorists in this regard, that we should stop being America. I believe it’s just morally wrong. Obviously you disagree.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Here you go. I assume you’ll be providing your own source refuting the facts presented.
Please explain the difference between the two. Point being, I never claimed to know how many detainees were being held unjustly. Is there a contradiction here? Explain.
Yeah, don’t address the substance of the opinion; just dismiss it out of hand while disingenuously ignoring that the opposing opinion is from a right wing source. Classic.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Here’s the problem with that argument: If you detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without a trial you never determine who is a terrorist and who is not. I support the rights of terrorist suspects because I believe everyone has the right to due process. If they are tried and found to be guilty of terrorism, them the should be locked up for good. Until that point however they are not terrorists, but merely individuals charged with terrorism. I don’t think this makes me a terrorist supporter; I want to see terrorists convicted and locked up for life. But I want our government to use due process to deteremine who these terrorists are. Too much to ask?
JaHerer22 on November 25, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Baloney on both Count Constantine. I have yet to see any democrat of leftist throwing an ape carp fit over US soldiers being tried under military law. In fact this very article shows Mrthat BEGGING for it to happen ! So your faux “I want soldiers to also have miranda rights” is really disgusting. Its an attempt tp backtrack and say you for something that you never intended to be fore simply because it undermines your whole argument about military tribunals. IF you are so worried about the US soldiers being unfairly tried then where is your outrage and demands of a new trial for someone like Lydie England ? I want to see you argue that !
And for your other hypocritical stance that “We will stop being America if we dont give Terrorists full rights” is really laughible. Again i will point out that During WWII we tried Nazi and Japanese warcriminals under military tribunals. And you know what ? America didnt desolve into a facist state when that happened. So the truth be know your fearmongering and anti US hatemongering have no basis in reality. Your playing a pathetically weak argument of “If we dont give them show trials where they can use every advantage they can have to get off scott free then it isnt a real trial” is really sad to try and understand. These are NOT criminals they are hardcore murders who are getting far more justice than they deserve. Even the Geneva convetion gives the right to shoot on sight anyone who takes up arms and doesnt wear a uniform. Its perfectly legal toi have lined these bastards up and shot them down in mass executions because they are involation of all know forms of civilized war. We are in FACT going out of our way to give them rights that they forfitted when they took up arms they way they did.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Technically yes it is. They by all rights of international laws do not have rights. They are in voilation of the geneva convention and can be shoot on sight they dont even have to be taken prisoner.
Again show me where I said I dont want trials for Terrorists ? I want military tribunals for them. IF its good enough for our troops its good enough for terrorist scum. They dont deserve full Constitutional protections is what I am arguing. They are not US citisens and do not get the rights most of the rest of us get.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 1:35 PM
As American voters just voted in the party that works to assist the terrorists, just what should Republicans have done to correct the situation? The liberal press has sucessfully run the trial of our Heroes that caused the people to find them guilty. I don’t see how Republicans could have done anything different than they already have.
DannoJyd on November 25, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Are you trying to say the reason that democrats won the congress was because the American people were so ready to give the Gitmo group full rights ?
Thats a laugh. The dems won on making Iraq an issue and whining about “Corruption” so much so that they have to keep the “Corruption” angle going in wholehearted massed planned investigations from now until doomsday to hide their lack of ability to govern.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 1:41 PM
Americans gave up on the War because it isn’t going perfectly, and they voted against Republicans for not doing their jobs perfectly. Forget that the Democrats fought against every Republican effort, forget that the democrats enable the terrorists. Totally forget that the Democrats labeled our Heroes as being torturers. Just be certain to punish the party that worked to keep America safe because they didn’t do as we quietly wanted them to do. Cut-and-run Americans voted for the cut-and-run party.
Blaming Republicans for the efforts of the Democrat Party is much like blaming America for making the terrorists terrorise. I subscribe to neither notion.
DannoJyd on November 25, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Isn’t that, in effect, what has just happened?
DannoJyd on November 25, 2006 at 2:04 PM
“Ape carp fit”? What does that even mean? You keep trying to pound that round peg into a square hole. First it was “you don’t want the troops to have fair trials” and now you claim I don’t demonstrate enough outrage to prove I really, really, really want soldiers to be tried fairly.
Considering there is photographic evidence of Ms. England happily participating in her crimes, I think you’re probably alone on that one.
You’ll find the Nuremberg trials were held for prominent Nazi officers, not individual combatants whose participation was in question.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 2:31 PM
Constantine, no one here buys into that rhetoric. Even the NY Times cannot sell it effectively.
DannoJyd on November 25, 2006 at 2:43 PM
You’re referring to…?
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 2:56 PM
Sorry was a type meant ape CRAP fit. Didnt want to use the S word.I pointed out that you are upset about military tribunals yet that is what these Marines are being tried under and you seem to have no problem with them not getting full constitutional rights. Other than one small ” I want them to also get their day in court” type message that really was worthless in that you still havent said you would asked that these marines that Murtha is hyper aobut also get a jury trial rather than a military tribunal.
You missed the point. You are the one decrying Military tribunals yet that is what convicted Ms England. Why no faux outrage that she didnt get a fair trial ? Is it because she isnt a terrorist non American ?
And your saying someone like Sheik Mohammed isnt a bigwig in Al Queda ? Just how many people do you think there are in Gitmo thousands ? Its barely hundreds. There isnt some massive prison camp there with vast armies of POWs. Its the hardcore of the hardcore there. So trying to say these Gitmo detainees are all “Common soldiers” is really laughible.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 3:06 PM
HOW MANY WAYS CAN I SAY THIS? How dense are you? I’ve repeatedly asserted soldiers should have the same rights as anybody in a civil criminal trial. What don’t you understand? I don’t think Ms. England was treated unfairly because there was NO DOUBT it was her in the photos!
I was never specifically referring to Gitmo detainees, but rather all those worldwide. There’s no harm to be done by trying a Sheik Mohammed, because he should be relatively easy to convict.
But go ahead and keep trying to tell me what I think; it’s such a common conservative tactic these days. I suppose it must be fun. Here, I’ll give it a try: no matter what you say, you conservatives believe our troops should fight equipped with nothing but frilly summer dresses! No wonder you lost the election!
Yep. Fun.
Constantine on November 25, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Constantine, O.J. got his ‘civil criminal trial’. Did that satisfy you?
DannoJyd on November 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Before I get to the Vanity Fair article posted on the extreme left (Rove to be indicted tomorrow) TruthOut.org, written by.. lol… Craig Unger…. The part about “assuming” and “speculating” wasn’t to show a difference you retard, it was to invalidate your entire post that didn’t rely on facts. This is a pattern with you… something can always “reasonably be assumed” or “speculate either way”, etc.
Now, please show what in that “article” contradicts FactCheck.org’s findings, and even if you’re able to do so, explain why I would believe it, over FactCheck.org which no one would argue is partisan. I repeat:
Now, please find me a non-opinion piece written for Vanity Fair (apparently) and then posted on one of the most dishonest whack job sites on the net, and explain to me how it proves Saddam didn’t SEEK yellowcake (which we know he did). Again, proving that Saddam didn’t buy it, has nothing to do with whether he sought it. Oh, and I think the former PM of Niger probably has a better idea of whether Saddam sought yellowcake from him than you do.
RightWinged on November 25, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Constantine,
There seemed to be confusion (at least between agents) about whether he had terrorist connections and dubious whether “aggressive interrogation” would be warranted, so your reasoning might not be valid. Of course, you could be right and it could be a mistake which occurred. But more than Mr. Arar, I assume that you are implicitly making a larger point concerning extraordinary rendition?
As I understand it, they’ve all had their “day in court” with Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) and with the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
To be clear, I’m not among those who suggested that. My point was that your view diverges from the historical view, suggesting that greater evidence of efficacy should be required. The change in precedent also suggests that judicial activism might be an issue.
Well, you can always read the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 itself. It provides for CSRT and appeal. Also, note that the article I linked was from 10-03-2006. My guess is that the article you linked was written on 08-02-2004. Significant changes have occurred since then.
Back on topic, a major contention in these threads seems to revolve around how we respond to our imprecise and lacking knowledge: to which side do we give the benefit of the doubt?
Kevin on November 25, 2006 at 7:40 PM
But again I have to set up what your not understanding> Im not challenging you to say that military people should have the same rights as everyone else. Im saying that the same military justice system that tried and convicted England is good enough for the Gitmo detainees. You are the one trying to say that they are not fair.
What proof do you have of that ? I havent seen you find one fact to say that terrorists wouldnt get a fair shake in military tribunals (The same kind that tried England). If anything it is a far more fair shake than they deserve.
Again these are not US citisens and the do NOT have US Constitutional protections. Show me where it says they do in the US Constitution ?
So your arguing moonbeams here. I have repeatedly shown that Military tribunals have handled foreign enemies. There is no basis to say they should get US jury trials. Your wishes play no matter in the law. Military tribunals are legal and have been traditional the way we try foreigners captured in time of war.
So again I challenge you to back up your claim that these tribunals are unfair or even illegal.
William Amos on November 25, 2006 at 9:53 PM
Sad. I am very saddened. All around. We are up to 2871 us solders dead. I mean what can you say. I really do NOT blame the soldiers. They are under tremendous stress, this is war. They see there friends and fellow bothers in arms blown to pieces. They go out on a by day on road where they see craters where friends or their commanding officer was killed just days earlier, and than go back the next day after after that, on the same road that was unsecured or patrolled all night to get blown up again. Of course Rumsfeld scoffed at the idea 200,000 to 300,000 US solders would be needed to occupy Iraq and fired the General that suggested it. Bloody shame the combo arrogance and ignorance.
This whole Marine deal hurts America and of course the innocent lives of Iraq citizens. I can only imagine what the Arabic language news and propaganda machine will do with this. This has been one of the worse weeks ever in Iraq.
Is Murtha a dirt bag for condemning this from the get go? Some body had to say it. Do you think he take joy in this? Well to me the military folks are heroes. I would never criticize them, but as distasteful as it is, we have condemn the action for the sake of US. Soldiers are under fire and persecuted if they mess up. My only question is when will the leadership be accountable for their mistakes that put them in that position? I hear the GOP go OH the Dems are going to investigate. Well I hope they do some oversight. 6 years of executive cart blanch did not work.
BTW Mr. Rightwinged, “cut and runners”? That is so yesterday. Pres Bush even said he does not like that term and never used it but once or twice (actually about 30 times recorded on video but we digress). Even Kissinger says we can’t win and we can’t leave (face saving). Sounds like vietnam. Oh and you really care about the Shiite and Sunni. I bet you never heard the words (like most Americans) before 2003 or 2004, and I bet GW did not either. I am sure he was told of possible fall out as Chaney and Rumsfeld where, but I’m also sure Rumsfeld arrogantly ignored it and Chaney squawked like Batman’s arch enemy, The Penguin, quake quake, with a sneer, FEED Halliburton, must feed, need more money. Sorry I mean we went in for 9/11 or weapons of mass deception, I mean destruction. We (us the American people) made a BIG mistake. Lets change the course please. I’m not blaming we need to do something but a reality check is needed. Thought having the both sides of the House and Executive branch GOP might work out, but had doubts. I had hoped. Experiment did not work out. Glad the Dems have some power and wish them well. I hope the do well for the sake of America. If they screw up, they will be out, but I never want such a loop sided balance of power ever again. Recipe for corruption and stupidity with out debates and a rubber stamp mentality.
If there’s an aftermath of leaving than WE must accept responsibility, since we contributed to it. We should have learned the lesson in vietnam when Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, the top 5 of all time genocides. That would have happened if we did not go into SE Asia. We (the American people) have to accept the aftermath or PUT another 100,000 soldiers in Iraq. Please Mr. Rightwinged, its not too late to enlist in the Army. If I have to choose between my fellow American, or Iraq, I choose American’s. I am glad you have a big heart and really care. May be you can go to Iraq and volunteer helping Iraq.
Frankly I don’t want one more solder killed for their sectarian violence. Sorry, call it cut and run, don’t care, but you have to cut you loses at some point. I hate to seem biased to one side, but I am Pro America, what ever is best for her. I don’t give a damn about partisan BS. For all of our sakes and the sake of our families and kids hope the 110th House is a big successes and works with Bush to get us OUT of this mess.
gmcjetpilot on November 25, 2006 at 10:32 PM
The 110 Congress is already a failure. The violence is escalating and spreading. More deaths and things are getting worse not better.
And as sad as it is to have soldiers dead is alot better than having Amerian civilians dead. And that is the price we will pay for electing the dems in 2006.
I dont wish it was going to happen in fact I hope it doesnt. But I am not optomistic already Al Queda says it won in Iraq and its on to America.
We are showing weakness and its making our enemies bolder. North Korea set off its bomb. Iran is building one. More people are dying in Iraq and the Middle East than ever before.
Veitnam was a regional defeat. Iraq is a world wide defeat if we leave now and its repercusions will be felt for a long time.
William Amos on November 26, 2006 at 1:30 AM
Yes I’ll call Murtha a Dirtbag.
MURTHA IS A DIRTBAG!
Why? Because he called the marines ‘cold blooded murderers’ without a shread of envidence and he did it while speaking as a US congressman. And he did it not for the Iraqi civilians. Not even for the victims! But for his own political ambitions. To deliberately cast blame on Bush and Company in order to further his own political ambitions.
That makes Murtha much, much, worse then a dirtbag in my book. For that statement alone he should have been sanctioned and expelled from congress IMHO.
I don’t think we should ‘cut-and-run’ I think we should decide to fight. Cut out this ‘Politically Correct’ bullshit and ‘wining their hearts and minds’ crap. Never, ever, has a war been won by ‘winning their hearts and minds’.
Fight the enemy on the battlefield. But also fight them in the media. Show the ‘lions of Islam’ hiding behind women and children on video during each and every press conference. Drop the ‘Islam is a religion of Peace’ mantra – its a lie. Stop giving the enemy guided tours of our Airport security systems. Treat organizations like CAIR what they are – enemy propaghanda(sp?) outlets – and of the NYT keeps revealing our national security secrets then treat them the same way – arrest their editors and close down their business. Being ‘press’ does not give them the right to endanger the rest of us in order to further their own agenda.
Vietnam was ‘lost’ because we won the battlefield – but lost the media war.
CrazyFool on November 26, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Just 2 points. 1) We have to condemn What Action? Like Murtha, you seem to have found our Heroes guilty even before the investigation has ended! If you believe the MSM’s reporting on the matter then please explain to me why they were wrong over a month ago when they reported that the investigation was over. Could they are wrong again? BTW, in America everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
2) Why are you so willing to concede defeat? Our troops in Iraq don’t seem to be in any hurry to give up the good fight. Maybe you think they will be safer somewhere else, but history has shown us that the terrorists will attack us at home, and the troops in supposedly safe havens. Isn’t it better to go down fighting than to be sitting ducks?
DannoJyd on November 26, 2006 at 4:53 PM
Comment pages: