Who the fuck are you calling we, kemo sabe?
Are you fucking retarded? My taxes pay for a lot of shit, but last I checked I never told a marine to shoot civilians or a cop to take bribes, or a politician to lie under oath.
I think we managed to convict murderers before we had these forensic tools. They were in uniform, which means that they are held to a higher standard than an ordinary civilian, anyway. Much as I admire the impulse to support the troops, you’ve gone off your nut here.
Reminder:
[QUOTE=Restricted Language in the Pit]
The following expressions should not be directed at other posters.
cunt and variants, e.g., cuntlapper
[/QUOTE]
Thanks! No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Mode
What I wrote was nothing compared with the obscenity of the preceding post.
LOL! At the example cited. Never heard anyone call anyone that.
Then how is this to be done?
Are these men to be afforded the same set of trial protocols, evidence, cross examination that we afforded to OJ Simpson? Or do we try them under the somewhat more sparse protocols of military justice?
Should the death penalty be sought? For all of them? There is a principle that could be used here, that all participants in a crime that results in an innocent death are equally culpable, regardless of who actually fired the shots. The driver of the car gets the same needle as the shooter. You comfortable with that?
And if not, how in God’s name do we determine individual guilt? By testimony? Do we have any forensics at all?
Do we operate under the principle that the commander has responsibility for the actions of his subordinates? We’ve used that, we hanged a Japanese general for the actions of his subordinates, without having to prove that he knew or approved. It works, if that’s what you want.
Is it? Is that justice, in your eyes? Personally, I have my doubts, I’ve mostly thought that principle is a convenience, a means to gain retribution rather than justice. And you?
What if a man says he was there, yes, but he didn’t kill anyone, he aimed away, he was too afraid of his insane commander. If that’s true, does it make a difference? A case could be fairly made that his duty was to open fire on his buddies, shoot his commander and anyone else who endangered the innocent. I have a lot of sympathy for that case. but mine are not commonly popular opinions, so I’ll ask yours.
Suppose its true? Suppose its true but we can’t prove it? Suppose its a total lie, that the soldier in question was an enthusiastic murderer, but we can’t prove that? How much certainty are you willing to give up in the name of justice? How much risk will we take of condemning the innocent, to ensure retribution against the guilty?
Problem solved if they are all guilty by the above principle. That what you want?
You’re ready to judge them. Are you ready to try them?
Goodness you’re right, it sounds sooooo complicated, best not bother.
And really, aren’t we all the victims here?
Not much of one. If so, he should at least be given a dishonourable discharge, for being a coward unfit to be a soldier, and found guilty of being an accessory to murder, for knowingly helping cover up two dozen murders that he was personally witness to.
I’m not a big fan of what happened to Yamashita, but don’t really see the relevance here. This incident involves the responsibility of a superior for the actions of immediate subordinates present at the same location. That eliminates most of the perceived unfairness of the Yamashita standard, surely?
I’m willing to accept applying collective responsibility to a small unit such as was involved here barring evidence that individual members were not complicit in either the crime or the cover up. If you’re not willing to stop the crime as it’s taking place, surely you have a legal and moral obligation to report it as soon as possible afterwards?
No doubt. I only mention the Yamashita standard as one that has been used in the past, probing for whatever standard is to be applied here. To my eye, that appears to be lacking, we want justice, we demand justice. All well and good, but the mechanism? If justice is based on truth, and truth is based on our knowledge of the facts, what have we got, here?
A terrible thing has happened here, and there is no doubt that our troops were responsible. That much we can say we know, without hesitation, without doubt. What else do we know? What else can we take to a court of law and offer as fact? Isn’t it obvious that if we are to press for justice, the penalties must be severe? Is there a penalty short of life imprisonment or death (which I uniformly and unhesitatingly oppose) that is proportional to the crime? And if we are to seek that level of accountability, are we not also obliged to extend these men the same safeguards of defense as we offered OJ?
But we don’t have that and we are not likely to get that, short of an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel. We cannot know that soldier Jones fired this particular round that killed this child. (This is my understanding of the situation as of this moment, if I am wrong about that, if such solid forensic evidence exists, I await correction…).
So, we cannot pursue justice as a matter of individual responsibility. If we are to proceed, we pretty much have to accept the principle of collective guilt, that all the soldiers who were there are equally culpable, the guy who didn’t fire a shot is held to be as guilty as the man who enthusiastically participated.
If we allow that the a soldier might be permitted to claim that he was not directly and personally murderous, and therefore must be held to a lesser crime, then we open a ginormous can of worms, because our level of factual proof doesn’t go there. Again, if I am wrong about that, please correct me, I do not like the truth I am telling, and would be pleased not to have to.
So, are we to hold that soldier to the same standards of accountability as the enthusiastic participant? Doesn’t seem right to me, but if we are to proceed, how else could we do it? Clearly, the failure to report is a crime, but is it on the same level as murder? I think not, YMMV. As well, I am mindful that the bonding of men in combat is something few if any civilians understand, their loyalty to each other transcends what I can understand and, Goddess willing, I never will. Their very survival depends upon it.
(Remember those helicopter guys at My Lai, who interfered? IIRC, they went so far as to threaten to open fire upon American soldiers if need be. I am proud of those men, I am proud they wore the uniform we provide, I am proud to be in the same species as men like these. In a just world, such men would be roundly applauded and held up as heroes by their peers. You may recall, they were not.)
How are we to proceed, then, to hold the guilty fully accountable without being unjust to the less-guilty? There are no innocents, only the victims were innocent. And if that is not possible, what then do we do?
I can understand how someone might think that this is all a cloud of confusion, that I am offering complexity to obscure truth to some malign purpose. That is not the man I see when I shave, but I cannot prove that. If anyone can hold a trial in their own mind and find me guilty, there is nothing to be done about that. But a man who won’t stand for an unpopular opinion that he believes to be true, he isn’t worth the grease it would take to fry him.
And that would be this: that in all likelihood, real justice is not possible under these circumstances. Would it be better to fudge a bit, in order that stern punishment can be meted out for a crime that shrivels our souls? That question is over my pay grade, but I think not.
That said, however, I want every record public, I want every cover-up exposed, I don’t want to see another example of grunts punished while officers skate. But it isn’t enough, and it can’t be.
The men who did this thing have their own burdens to carry, and I am perfectly willing that they be judged, but on facts! and facts alone! I cannot peer into another man’s soul and inventory the contents, nor can you, nor him, nor her. If you want to claim that you can, and you can prove it, I will gladly step aside and serve myself a steaming cup of STFU. If such a claimant comes forth, let him walk across this lake, and heal a couple of lepers. Just to establish bona fides, you understand…
What is your first language?
p.s. if you learned English other than from Hollywood scripts it might aid your credibility.
Hell, anybody can be an American, but you have to be born a Texan!
But if you want to indulge in questions of style and rhetoric, perhaps another forum would be appropriate? Seems rather trivial a matter, given the subject we are engaged upon. Life, death, justice, that sort of thing?
And if I ever feel an urgent need to be blessed with your credibility, you will be the first to know, depend upon it!
We do know that they all kept the murders secret after the fact. That is enough to send each one to prison for life, assuming none of them are married to each other.
Maybe. Lt. Calley of My Lai got life at hard labor for murder, did three years house arrest, and walked. IIRC, no one else was convicted. The sentence was imposed, but evaporated. I suppose the forms of justice were followed, but the substance…?
It’s your ghod damn duty as a citizen of the U.S.A. to try them.
Bullshit. Yes, sometimes you can give a pass to people who piss on the corpses of the enemy who was trying to kill them. To some extent you can excuse guys who were getting shot at by angry young brown men, then go kill some other angry young brown men who weren’t shooting at them at that particular moment, but probably were at some point.
But to kill a family of unarmed people including children? There’s a point where you have to say, you know buddy, war is hell but I’m pretty sure you were an asshole before you ever got to the war, in fact that’s probably part of the reason you joined up.
I was always amused by that sentence. Life at hard labor? So what are they going to make him do, smash rocks with a sledgehammer all day long? Roll gigantic boulders up hills? Is he going to have to keep doing it when he’s 60? 70? 80 years old?
“This is the room where my whole family was killed,” says Safa Younes.
Bullet holes pepper the front door to the house in the Iraqi town of Haditha, where she grew up. Inside the back bedroom, a colourful bedspread covers the bed where her family was shot.
This is where she hid with her five siblings, mum and aunt when US marines stormed into their home and opened fire, killing everyone apart from Safa, on 19 November 2005. Her dad was also shot dead when he opened the front door.
Now, 20 years on, a BBC Eye investigation has uncovered evidence that implicates two marines, who were never brought to trial, in the killing of Safa’s family, according to a forensic expert.