Soldiers on trial for murder claim orders to 'kill all military aged males'.

There were tens of thousands of people in Fallujah when the US and Iraqi forces attacked the city (a city that was under the rule of insurgent forces mind you). IIRC, the estimate was something like 25k…of which at least half were male. You claim that the US turned back all males with the express intent that we could designate them as terrorists/insurgents and ‘slaughter’ them…by which I take it to mean we would presumably kill them en masse.

Where the fuck is your evidence for that? Please either provide your evidence that the US killed something on the order of 10,000 males in Fallujah (hell, 5,000 males) or SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY! Since nothing else seems to be getting through to you when you make these wild claims out of your all maybe this will…its a request for a cite that you back up your fucking bullshit or retract your claim. Either that or shut up already. Fuck you are exasperating sometimes Der…

Um, yes…I know. However, IF they were issued those orders then the folks who issued them would ALSO be on trial. In addition, it would be comsidered mitigating circumstances and probably lessen their sentence if they could prove that they were in fact issued those illegal orders. Thus far I’ve seen damn all evidence that the defense is even attempting to do this however…which kind of leads me to believe what I’ve asserted all along…that this whole thing is complete bullshit wrt these being official orders or changes in the ROE.

Exactly.

-XT

I think that’s exactly what the soldiers’ lawyers are angling for. “Drop the charges or try the generals!”

Fine by me, if true. IF they were indeed issued those illegal orders ( :dubious: ), then go for the folks who issued them. It will only mitigate the sentences for the 4 who committed the crime of course…they are still guilty, orders or no orders.

I’m not holding my breath though. Not because I think there will be some kind of cover up…I don’t think its possible for the reasons I’ve already said (the sheer number of folks in a battalion who would have been briefed on the orders and ROE changes IMO makes it impossible). But…if it did happen then certainly go for ALL those guilty…even if that means going to the very top at the Pentagon…or the White House.

-XT

Why would it mitigate the sentences? If they weren’t ordered to do so, and assuming they’re guilty, then they’ve comitted those various criminal acts. If they were ordered to do so, however, not only have they committed those criminal acts, but they’ve also comitted the crime of obeying an illegal order. Surely it would mean they’re actually in more trouble?

No idea…I’m no lawyer. That was ME talking out my ass and making an assumption that soldiers under orders, who were following those orders, despite them being illegal, would have lesser sentences if they WERE under orders (illegal though they be), than if they simply were doing something illegal on their own.

For all I know they WOULD be punished harder in those circumstances. Though I was in the military I have no idea at all to be honest…

-XT

I can see a tribunal going easier on them if it had been an order, but then again it also makes sense to me that they might be more heavily punished for not reporting and refusing the illegal orders on top of the other acts. I suppose it depends on precedence; do tribunals usually go easier or harder on you if you were ordered to whatever it was you did?

Fine by you != fine by Bush.

How many commissioned officers went down over the Abu Ghraib business? And do you really believe none were responsible?!

I think the CinC has at least some influence over who the military justice system brings to trial.

Um…yes? And? Are you saying I would be distressed by Bush not approving, or that Bush would some how come down from on high to cover the whole thing up, leaving these 4 holding the bag?

With as much attention as this thing got? With as much close observation by Congress, the Senate…hell, the press? Yeah…I believe that IF there was evidence of a commissioned officers involvement in AG it would have surfaced. The fact that not even some wet behind the ears LT was nabbed (afaik) is, to me, a telling point wrt if the ILLEGAL acts went higher up the food chain. Do you have any actual evidence this isn’t the case? Because frankly I’ve seen none thus far.

I think you are dead wrong. Its like saying Bush has influence over who civilians bring to trial. What is your evidence this is the case?

-XT

Where would an ordinary citizen get such evidence? My judgment is based on the fairly obvious facts that:

  1. Every lawyer in the DoD’s JAG corps is ultimately answerable to the Commander in Chief.

  2. Every lawyer in the Justice Department is ultimately answerable to the attorney general, who is appointed by and answerable to the president. (Of course Bush has influence over who they do or don’t bring to trial!)

The federal government’s judges have constitutionally guaranteed political independence, but its lawyers don’t.

For those in need of fighting their own massive ignorance; how quickly they forget:

Fallujah and the Reality of War

RedFury, could you find a more credible source for the men not being allowed to leave than a blogger and writer of antiwar books? I remember hearing this rumor bandied around the web at the time, but I don’t think I ever heard it from a news source I would trust. You do realize the insurgents use propaganda too, don’t you? Just because I hate the war doesn’t mean I automatically believe anybody’s stories about attrocities.

I think you’re very confused about the strictures and protections placed on military lawyers.

Here is (most likely) where much of Red’s blogger got his info from. I’ll post it here without comment…except to say that anyone who is sure where fire is coming from in a hot war zone is either psychic or has some kind of pre-disposition for who they THINK is firing at them. (I will also state that US snipers generally hit what they aim at…so if they WERE shooting at those folks, they would be dead). As to the US/Iraqi forces turning back males of military age…yeah, that happened. It should be fairly easy to find cites for it if you need them.

-XT

Please advise. I yearn to be proven wrong in this particular instance!

Are you going to accept military sources for that information? Regulations, especially evaluation/fitness report regs, prohibit punishing a lawyer for defending his assigned clients. The JAG has a trial defense service just as there is a public defender’s service in civilian life. Just as it doesn’t matter that both the DA and the PDA work for the same government, it doesn’t matter that the prosecuting military attorney and the defending miltary attorney work for the same government.

But who decides who are his assigned clients in the first place? A JAG is not like a lawyer in private practice. He/she takes cases assigned by higher-ups.

What I mean is, how do we know that no political considerations come into play in deciding what commissioned officers will or will not be charged in connection with Abu Ghraib, or the killings giving rise to this thread, or any other matter?

Well, if you’re going to go into the lunatic world of conspiracy theorism, I’ll leave you to your own devices.

But if you’re serious about it, from what I understand, the assignments are made at the military’s trial defense service similarly to the way they’re made at the PD’s office.

As to how does someone determine which commissioned officers are charged, it’s quite simple. The Article 32 investigation is convened if some commissioned officer is accused. If there is evidence to warrant trial by court-martial, then that is what ensues. If there is no evidence to support such a trial, then the investigation is concluded.

Or would you rather see people tried absent evidence?

I’m talking about the prosecution, not the defense. In the civilian sphere, every disctrict attorney’s/state attorney’s office has broad discretion as to whether to seek an indictment against any potential defendant. But each such office is headed by an official elected at the county/city level, and accountable to the county/city voters. Whereas the United States AG . . .

“Accused” by who?

Here’s how it works in the military:

  1. Anyone can accuse someone of an offense. That accusation is made on a charge sheet. (The military, of course, just loves forms.)

  2. An officer is appointed to investigate the charges levied. This is known as an Article 32 investigation.

  3. If the Investigating Officer determines that there is merit in the charges, then he refers it to his commanding officer.

  4. The commanding officer determines if he will dispose of the charges at an Article 15 hearing (“non-judicial punishment” (JNP)) or refer to the matter to trial by court-martial.

  5. If the accused is not a member of the Navy or the Marine Corps and assigned to sea duty, then, if offered NJP, he can decline that and request trial by court-martial.

  6. If the CO decides the case should be disposed of at trial, then he refers it to the court-martial convening authority for the area and service concerned.

  7. The court-martial convening authority then decided if there should be a trial.

  8. If there’s a trial by court-martial, then the accused is offered a military lawyer at no cost (of course). He is also permitted to have a non-military lawyer versed in military law to represent him or assist in his representation.

  9. The government’s case is also represented by a military lawyer, this time a prosecutor.

  10. The Attorney General, to my knowledge, has exactly zero to do with any of this. The senior legal officer is the Judge Advocate General. He does not run for election or re-election and is appointed per the service regulations concerned.

You might note that not only can anyone make an accusation, but it is also an offense to make a false accusation.

Does “anyone” include civilians?

Non-American civilians?