Is it that true all JAG officers serve as both prosecutors and defense counsel (though not at the same trial)?
Yes.
Yes.
To clarify, the procedures for a civilian are a bit different but it’s basically the same thing: a witness or “responsible person” (such as platoon leader, company commander) completes paperwork to initiate the investigatin which, as we know, can lead to court-martial. Also, if the accused is a commissioned officer in the chain-of-command of the accuser, there’s another procedure entirely, but it also can lead to court-martial.
That’s my understanding. JAG officers are not specialists, IIRC, but rather are required to be equally versed in various aspects of the law.
Thank you for the info. I don’t dispute the fact that things got really ugly in Fallujah, and it is likely that innocents were killed. I hate that, believe me. I hate it a LOT. The death toll seems to be wildly varied, but I don’t think you could make a case for the entire male population of military age having been sent back in and systematically wiped out.
So, any of the soldiers now on trial, as an actual witness to the events and recipient of the orders in question, could bring charges against his CO, or even his CO’s CO?
This could get interesting.
No, but a clear case can be made that they were not permitted to leave. Which is to say, citizens of Iraq, on their own soil, were not permitted freedom of movement at the arbitrary discretion of an occupying force. A stricture that kept them in harm’s way, on the presumption that they might be combatants.
If I were to claim that the Jacobins used lasers to incinerate France’s ancien regime, you might quickly prove me wrong. That does not mean that you are free to claim that the Reign of Terror didn’t happen.
No worries. Contrary to what a few folks in this thread think or claim, I’m not trying to sugar coat this stuff. Did innocents die? Certainly. It was a hot war zone after all, with insurgents fighting in the streets…mostly dressed as civilians with few (if any) distinguishing ‘badges’ designating them as combatants. They were sniping at the troops from building to building, and were dug in…right in the midst of the civilians of Fallujah. This is a nightmare scenerio for combat troops. Hell, ANY city fighting is a nightmare.
Yeah…again, contrary to the thoughts of some, I’m none too keen myself. I wish to gods we weren’t in that fucking mess. Unfortunately the reality is that we ARE there…and have to make the best of a bad situation. That means we are going to fuck up, look bad, have bad things happen, etc. With the number of troops we have there, coupled by the blind hate and the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve whatever the fuck goals the various ‘insurgent’ bands are after…its simply ugly. Which, if we were smart, we’ve have figured out BEFORE we went into Iraq.
Will it be worth it in the end? Gods know. YMMV…
The official death toll, IIRC, was something like 800…the vast majority of which were insurgents. Of course, this is cold comfort to the real non-combatants who were killed. No, it was hardly genocide, or the systematic wiping out of all adult males. Were that the case, as I said earlier, the death toll would have been literally thousands…perhaps tens of thousands. There were still a hell of a lot of folks in Fallujah when the US and Iraq encircled it that second time and started to move in.
The thing is, one has to ask ones self…WHY did the US and the Iraqi’s turn back the males who were trying to ‘flee’ the city? It seems, on the surface, quite in humane. Hell…it WAS reasonably in humane. Did they do it for spite? Did they do it so they could then designate every male as a ‘terrorist’ or ‘insurgent’ and so have more target practice? Or did they have some military reason, that at the time outweighed other considerations? 'luci and Der would have you believe the former…though neither of them has thus far provided any evidence to back that up…except their own convoluted ‘gut’ feelings, perhaps backup up by some readings from their favorite Iraqi blog. The official reason was…they didn’t want to have happen what had happen in the past, namely they didn’t want to let the males go, a percentage of which would be insurgents, who would flee Fallujah…and pop up somewhere else to wreak havoc in another city. So, instead of trying to sort them out on the spot, or arresting them all, the thought process was to turn them back with an injunction to the non-combatants to keep their heads down for a few days until the shooting stopped.
In retrospect of course this was probably not the wisest course. For one thing the fighting took longer than anticipated. It was heavier fighting than anticipated, with the insurgents fighting harder than anticipated…and putting up a MUCH more stubborn defense than anticipated. This meant that things dragged on longer, and with the fighting heavier it was harder for the real non-combatants to find a safe place to hide…or get medical attention (or FOOD!) during the fighting. This significantly upped the civilian casualties IMHO.
What the US/Iraqi army (probably) should have done was to take any male attempting to flee the city into custody and at the minimum hold them until the operation was done (the women and children should have been housed separately in some kind of refugee facilities)…all of this well away from Fallujah. Perhaps attempt some kind of filtering process to at least attempt to determine if they were combatants or non-combatants (gods know how they would have done THAT of course).
This would have had its own down sides of course…and several of the folks in this thread would now be bitching about THAT as well, had they chosen to go that route. Of course thats the way of it…no matter what is done, its going to set some folks off.
-XT
And how do we know that the toll was so low, or that most were “insurgents” ? Or even the majority ?
Because they thought like you, who put quotes around “flee”. We regarded them all as evil, vile insurgents/terrorists/heathens. The Iraqis did it no doubt because we’d kill or torture them if we didn’t, or their loved ones.
Which of course is an old justification for mass murder or outright genocide, since the same applies to the entire Iraqi population; for that matter, the entire world population. “Kill them all, and let God sort them out”. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Rape camps, in other words. They certainly would have been regarded as such; the Iraqis have no reason to believe better of us. America has worked hard to prove to them that we are ruthless and evil.
Filtering process = torture, until they “admit” being “insurgents”.
I remembered a thread from way back where you showed great knowledge of military legal procedure, thought you could explain it far better than my layman attempt might have been. Thanks.
Toll low? Thats a matter of perspective…and your definition of ‘low’. In your case, ANY casualties, on ANY side would be too high. The mileage varies though from person to person on that account.
Most were ‘insurgents’? Stands to reason, as THEY were the primary target. Do you have any evidence that this wasn’t the case, that the majority of killed were civilian non-combatants in Fallujah? If so (and if is not some anti-War anti-Bush blogfest) then bring it out and lets take a look.
:rolleyes: They didn’t think of them all as ‘evil’ (‘heathens’? :rolleyes: !!)…they thought of them as SUSPECT. You see, in the past they did just what you wanted…and a certain percentage of those ‘fleeing’ males ‘fled’ to other cities and started to blow things up.
The rest of your post is just too ridiculous to even bother ‘debating’. ‘Rape camp’? ‘Genocide’? Do you have any evidence of any of this bullshit? Of course you don’t…because its in your own fevered mind (well, and probably in the fevered minds of the various blogs you slavishly follow). Its you in your standard ridiculous over the top mode. To you it really isn’t hyperbole, is it? Its the exact ‘truth’ as perceived by Der Trihs. That it really bears no resemblence to reality is of no concern to you I’m sure…
-XT
The same “insurgents” that couldn’t be sorted out from random men, so all the men were sent back to die ?
They were American soldiers, so yes, that’s how they thought of those civilians. All of the civilians.
Since it didn’t happen, of course not. How could I ? I was speaking of what I think would have happened.
I’ve never read a blog in my life.
Did all the men die? Did a large percentage of the men die? Do you have any evidence for this assertion you keep mindlessly making?
Um…righto mate.
Right. It WOULD have happened, ehe? Myself, I think if they would have done what I said, what WOULD have happened is peace on earth and good will toward men. My evidence? Well, my assertion that it would have been the case of course.
You say so 'mano.
-XT
Wholly unfair. Of course we don’t know how many died, or indeed any percentage thereof. What we do know as that they were sent back to a place where death was much more likely.
The point being: citizens of a sovereign nation (and they were, indeed, sovereign. We oughta know, we gave it to them…) were denied free passage on their own soil by an occupying army, as they attempt to flee a dangerous situation.
I don’t know if you can find a rhetorical device flexible enough to make this appear kosher. All I know is I do not want to play Twister against you!
Good grief, Der Tris. If we, the U.S.A., wanted to commit genocide, we would be doing a better job of it. We could have blockaded Fallujah and not let anybody of any age and sex out and then nuked it. Or at least bombed it into a sandy crater. And while there have been outrages and abuses in detention camps, ‘rape camps’ is beyond the pale. You seem to want to paint the entire military, from top to bottom, as heartless, evil, butchering bastards. It just ain’t so.
On the whole, I think the U.S. has been far more stupid in Iraq than evil.
Wouldn’t it be nice if that mattered? Alas.
While it doesn’t matter to the dead, injured and displaced, it does matter overall. If we were deliberately being evil, there would be genocide going on and there isn’t.
Out of control, badly planned, illegal invasion and FUBAR occupation, yes.
Genocide, no.
Perhaps you missed what I was responding too?
All the men were sent back to die. Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe this is some kind of code phrase though. Could you clear up the definition, since you seem to be attempting to defend Der’s various blunders (gods know why, but there it is)?
As for the rest of your, um, assertions…we DO know (aproximately) how many folk were killed in Fallujah. We also know (aproximately) how many folk were there. I’m not asking for precise numbers…ball park figures will work. You don’t even have to sort them out…i.e. civilian non-combatant/insurgent combatant. The raw numbers will tell the tail if ‘all’ or even a large percentage of men in Fallujah were killed off, as per Der’s assertions.
Have at it 'luci…you want to defend him, then back up what he’s saying. Or, conversely, you could keep up this rhetorical bullshit you’ve been engaging in thus far in this thread.
Um…you forgot to mention the whole ‘war zone’ thingy. You also forgot to mention that it was a joint US/Iraqi operation…since you are gratiously conceeding that Iraq is sovereign and all.
Having witnessed your convoluted reasoning in this thread (as you attempt to defend the essentially indefensable Der Trihs), and watched in awe as you twist and turn in various other threads (for years mind you ), I’d say that it would be ME who would be a bit shy about playing twister with such a master as yourself 'luci.
-XT
Agreed. Cold comfort, indeed.
Nope. Your picking on Der Trihs. Because its easy.
It is what it is. They were sent back to a situation where they could very plausibly die. If I smear you with hamburger and throw you into a pool of piranha, does it matter if you are wholly devoured or just nibbled to death? I assert that my moral burden is the same.
Yes, indeed, we do have the official figures, direct from the Bushivik admin, whose reputation for strict honesty and wholesome candor is the stuff of legend. Straight from the horse’s, ah, mouth.
You are fixated upon that exaggeration as if by proving it an exaggeration, you cleanse all guilt. If they didn’t committ outright genocide (and assuredly, they did not…) then everything is hunky-dory. Not having any. One innocent victim is too many.
Thanks for your kindly permission. Der Trihs regretably exagerrates a valid point to an absurdity. You claim that the exaggeration invalidates the point. Nope.
A joint US/Iraq operation? Really? The Germans declared Vichy France a “sovereign” nation, yet there was little doubt as to whose nuts were in whose pocket. And again, their participation is testified to by men you have very good reason to doubt, in that they have lied to you with fulsome abundance.
No such thing. He’s a big boy, sure he can take care of himself.
Be ok to play Twister with me. Maybe not poker, you don’t bluff worth beans.
Well, they could file a complaint. In fact, because they’re claiming illegal orders as a defense, I would guess that they already have (I have no evidence of this, but it would seem to make sense, no?).
And yes, JAG officers tend to be both prosecutors and defense attorneys, but typically in different phases of their careers. Generally, the younger (i.e., less experienced) attorneys are prosecutors. As they get more experienced, they become defense attorneys.
However, in big cases like this and Abu Ghraib, all that stuff goes out the window. The higher ups generally appoint special counsel to prosecute and defend the higher profile cases. They generally don’t want first year attorneys prosecuting or defending guys accused of murder, let alone in such a high profile case.
One more thing worth mentioning: I don’t have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this – one of my best friends and my roommate from law school is now a JAG attorney – but I’m assured that the military takes perjury more seriously than civilian courts. So while you are entitled to assert any defense you want, asserting a cockamamie alibi that’s going to be proven obviously false may get you another charge for perjury and/or conduct unbecoming.
So I’d be surprised if that allegation of “We were ordered to kill every military-aged male” makes it to trial.