If you want to claim a political agenda to the case you need something more than a single line quote of the president of Afgahnistan calling for an investigation.
Any political leader would call for the investigation of an unarmed civilian being killed by a foreign military, I’m sure many dozens of such cases have gone un-prosecuted, if this one is going forward then maybe its because there is a real case?
See two can play at that game. If you are sure that dozens of cases have gone un-prosecuted you need more than your assertion.
Unknown if it is going forward. Thats what an Article 32 hearing is for.
Karzai has a policial agenda. Its widely reported. He is not interested in this case because of his keen interest in law enforcement. You can quibble if you want. It is obvious what kind of pressures are being placed on the case. What effect it will have remains to be seen.
Its not that I don’t understand what kind of political pressure Karzai himself is under. He is walking a tightrope. He must be seen to be tough with the US. He also needs to play nice with the US because they are pretty much all thats keeping him in power. And I’m sure he understands that his enemies are hiding amongst the populace which is going to lead to civilian casualties.For him its an easy call to put pressure on the US in this case. Do you really think that he will be satisfied if the Article 32 hearing comes back recommending no court martial?
more conventional war you have to make decisions that literally impact whether you are going to live or die and you have to make those decisions in seconds. If someone does something grossly negligent and against norms of military doctrine, you charge them. I don’t believe in punishing someone for making the wrong decision in combat. This guy had literally just moments before been engaged in an all out fight to the death. I don’t see how we as a society put people in that situation and then expect them to be punished if a decision they make in the heat of the moment turns out to be the wrong decision.
War kills civilians and that’s a big part of why war is abominable, but not all those civilian deaths are the result of malice or even criminal, and this one shouldn’t be from everything I’ve read.
Being as how I have spent a year in war and have picked up blood and body parts in a five gallon bucket and scrape flesh from the walls of blown up hootchs . And had my friends shredded to pieces . I say kill em all and let god sort it out!!! I have nothing more to say about this subject !
Wasn’t there an exact same thread started by a different username a few days ago?
Well, given what this looks like, thank God for politics. I am not assuming he is guilty, but it sure seems obvious that there’s a decent case to be made. Can’t understand why this guy deserves my charity anymore than the hundreds of other people who wrongly killed someone.
On this board, no.
Here you go:
“coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents”.
There quite a lot more to be easily found while I still have yet to find any evidence of political interference in SFC taylors case, a call for an investigation without any mention of guilt is entirely appropriate.
I never said otherwise. I said “not all civilian deaths are the result of malice or are even criminal.” I would argue this case was a result of a bad decision, perhaps a type of negligence, but not in my opinion what is or should be treated as criminal negligence (there’s a difference between negligence and criminal negligence. I’m being negligent if I get a soda out of a friend’s fridge and leave it open, resulting in all his food spoiling, but that isn’t a criminal act.)
Personally, I have a hard time simply calling it “negligence” when killing someone because that someone was running away from you with an unopened trunk along their flight path.
Okay, fair enough. It’s hard to find out what really happened, especially since the media writes according to an agenda which we don’t always know. From what I have read, I decided to support his defense fund.
Are the following in dispute?
***Second 1: A figure dressed in dark, bulky clothing emerges.
Second 2: The figure begins walking toward the trunk.
Second 3: Taylor, with five wounded comrades behind him, sees a thin trigger wire seeming to snake directly toward the black car. Could there be a second bomb in the trunk?
Second 4: Taylor squeezes the trigger on his M-4 carbine. The figure crumples to the dirt.***
What do you imagine the good Doctor was going to retrieve from the trunk?
They are not in dispute. But “second 3” is not relevant. The wire is completely unrelated to the car.
The car was stopped there because that is where they shot it up and forced it to stop.
If there was a bomb in the trunk, the wire would not be used to detonate it.
If the car was a VBIED, then it would have to be initiated from inside the car, not outside. So exiting the vehicle was not a VBIED indicator. And if it had been, the driver should have been shot, not the exiting passenger.
SFC Taylor doesn’t say he was scared of the wire or a bomb. He claims he feared she was going to get a weapon out of the trunk. All of the talk about wires and bombs is coming from a lawyer ignorant of IEDs and combat.
In a few brief seconds, as a firefight has been going on, in the urgent heat of battle, as adrenalin is coursing furiously through his blood vessels, we are to expect Taylor to not have fired at this (now we know to be an) innocent civilian, who tragically was at the wrong place at the wrong time? We’re going to nail him for this split-second decision made in the fog of war?
I’ve done several web searches on this issue and found only info supporting Taylor. Can anyone point to web pages other than these that claim Taylor is guilty? I’d like to read that info.
Again, I don’t think we need to argue the facts of this case here, but I do believe this guy deserves our support, people.
That is not what happened. Dr Hikmat was shot nine minutes after the car in which her family was killed was fired upon. Thats not the heat of battle, nine minutes is a long time. The wounded from the bombing had already been evacuated.
I’m guessing that the fact they were following the wire meant they were NOT still recieving small arms fire, I can’t imagine you would ever do that under fire. So the firefight was long over and SFC Taylor shot an unarmed civilian. Where was the imminent threat?
Nine minutes? Thanks, but, cite?
NM, found it here (emphasis mine):
“The crux of the case will be what judgment Taylor used during those few seconds as Hikmat got out of the car, perhaps nine minutes after the initial firing stopped. Army investigators believe he did not meet the primary criteria under the Army’s rules of engagement — making a positive identification of his target as a combatant and, beyond that, confirming that the unknown figure had hostile intent.”
Hearty congratulations on your several web searches, but the thing is Bear is an actual soldier.
I am aware of that, thank you. I am a Marine, retired in 1993 after the first Gulf War.
And, I posted that statement specifically to ask if there were any articles/pages not supporting Taylor.
Do you think the internet is some sort of jury? That because lots of people have rallied around a wounded soldier who needs money, it’s some sort of proof of innocence? That it counters Bear_Nenno’s argument in some way?
I doubt that you will find any.
And that proves…well, absolutely nothing.
mmm
Do you believe that this is relevant to questions of guilt or innocence?