Is This A War Crime?

[RichJohnston]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/27/wus27.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/27/ixnews.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1784307,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2199287,00.html

[Persevering Guy]

I would think so.

[artimoff]

Old news.

[sonnylarue]

Old news.
wrong,

news in progress about which the gov't is shitting themselves

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14669468.htm


Visit to stress Marine valuesBy Drew Brown
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps' top general left for Iraq yesterday to remind Marines that it's important to maintain their core values of "honor, courage and commitment" even in the middle of a bitter counterinsurgency where the differences between right and wrong, friend and foe, are often blurred.

Marine Commandant Gen. Michael W. Hagee's departure came a day after Marines in Iraq announced a criminal investigation into allegations that Marines killed an Iraqi civilian near the town of Hamandiyah, west of Baghdad, on April 26.

Investigators are also probing a Nov. 19 incident in which a group of Marines allegedly shot and killed 23 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, according to survivors interviewed by Knight Ridder.

Sen. John W. Warner (R., Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters yesterday that in both cases, "there are established facts that incidents of a very serious nature did take place." Hagee briefed Warner and the committee's ranking Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan, about the investigations Wednesday. The full committee was briefed yesterday.

Marine Corps officials said that Hagee's trip had been scheduled months ago but that he now intended to use it to deliver prepared remarks at Marine bases in Iraq and in the United States, reminding Marines of their obligations under the rules of war.

"Many of our Marines have been involved in life-or-death combat or have witnessed the loss of their fellow Marines, and the effects of these events can be numbing," Hagee will say, according to a copy of the remarks. "There is the risk of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life, as well as bringing dishonor upon ourselves."

Hagee said all Marines have been taught how to conduct themselves properly on the battlefield and have been trained to follow the Geneva Convention and other regulations while at war.

"We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force," the prepared text said. "We use lethal force only when justified, proportional, and most importantly lawful."

On Wednesday, the Marine command in Fallujah said that "several" Marines from the Third Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment had been returned to the United States until an investigation is completed into the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian near Hamandiyah.

The Marines said local Iraqis brought the alleged killing to the attention of Marine commanders during a routine meeting May 1.

Investigators reportedly are near completion of their probe into the Nov. 19 incident at Haditha. Military officials in Baghdad initially reported that 15 civilians on a bus had been killed that day, along with one Marine in a nearby humvee, when a roadside bomb exploded. They later said that more civilians died in the crossfire between Marines and insurgents.

But Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) told a news conference last week that the Marines killed the civilians "in cold blood" after snapping because of the pressures of combat.

Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said those findings would be included in a report due for delivery to top military brass in Baghdad this week.

this could be as messy as Abu garib was, and is coming at a terrible time, as the new Iraqi gov't will be forced to either look like puppetts to their people or admonish the US in some satisfactory way to apease the people.

[Toshio]

Yeh, I would define this as a war crime. Its not the best thing to do.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

Yes.

[Ray G.]

If true, an atrocity that the troops involved should be severely punished for.

[Jono]

If true, an atrocity that the troops involved should be severely punished for.

-If there's sufficient evidence they should stand trial for war crimes at The Hague, and if they're found guilty they should be executed or whatever the penalty is.

Is that what you meant by "severely punished"?

[Ray G.]

-If there's sufficient evidence they should stand trial for war crimes at The Hague, and if they're found guilty they should be executed or whatever the penalty is.

Is that what you meant by "severely punished"?

I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.

[ThisSpaceForRent]

Is that what you meant by "severely punished"?

Works for me.


I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.

'turn into our enemies'
Honestly...aren't we already there? There needs to be a 'strong stance' against our own president for us to have any 'moral credibility'.

[Ray G.]

'turn into our enemies'
Honestly...aren't we already there? There needs to be a 'strong stance' against our own president for us to have any 'moral credibility'.

I don't think we've turned into our enemies, and I don't think this is directly Bush's fault. We need to look at the chain of command to see if orders were given at any point that would have allowed this to happen. If it is just the work of a few bad apples, then they need to be prosecuted under US law to send the message that it won't be tolerated. Let's not turn this into another Bush-bashing thread.

[wabi-sabi]

I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.
But it is fine to punish other countries under international law, right?

[Ray G.]

But it is fine to punish other countries under international law, right?

What do you mean by that?

[wabi-sabi]

What do you mean by that?
You say that you are opposed to turning over our troops to international authorities, so are you opposed to turning over troops from other countries to stand trial for war crimes? Say, the underlings of Milosevic.

[NATE!]

'turn into our enemies'
Honestly...aren't we already there? There needs to be a 'strong stance' against our own president for us to have any 'moral credibility'.

Not yet. We haven't submitted to Allah, nor have we strapped explosives to ourselves and run into a mall full of people.


I give it a year, maybe slightly more than that.

[Ray G.]

You say that you are opposed to turning over our troops to international authorities, so are you opposed to turning over troops from other countries to stand trial for war crimes? Say, the underlings of Milosevic.

Well, I don't believe the international court is a great idea to begin with. They've already proved themselves to have made some very questionable decisions(the indictment of Ariel Sharon). I think it should only be used in a case where the accused can't get a fair trial in their home country. Milosevic was a clear example of this, due to the nature of his crimes against one side.

[wabi-sabi]

Well, I don't believe the international court is a great idea to begin with. They've already proved themselves to have made some very questionable decisions(the indictment of Ariel Sharon). I think it should only be used in a case where the accused can't get a fair trial in their home country. Milosevic was a clear example of this, due to the nature of his crimes against one side.
What if the individual's actions are not against their own country but against an opposing country? A trial in their home country will be worthless because the vicitim rarely receives equal standing.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

-If there's sufficient evidence they should stand trial for war crimes at The Hague, and if they're found guilty they should be executed or whatever the penalty is.

Is that what you meant by "severely punished"?
Sounds good.

[Ray G.]

What if the individual's actions are not against their own country but against an opposing country? A trial in their home country will be worthless because the vicitim rarely receives equal standing.

It's not perfect. But let me ask you, do you honestly believe that a US soldier could get a fair trial for crimes comitted during the Iraq war, in a court run by countries strongly opposed to the war? If the answer is no, then it's our duty as a country to protect our soldiers and make sure they face justice under our laws, where they'll get a fair trial.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

It's not perfect. But let me ask you, do you honestly believe that a US soldier could get a fair trial for crimes comitted during the Iraq war, in a court run by countries strongly opposed to the war? If the answer is no, then it's our duty as a country to protect our soldiers and make sure they face justice under our laws, where they'll get a fair trial.
That's what our country is. And unless their lawyers get their own dream team of jury members, I doubt their view of the case would be much different.

[wabi-sabi]

It's not perfect. But let me ask you, do you honestly believe that a US soldier could get a fair trial for crimes comitted during the Iraq war, in a court run by countries strongly opposed to the war? If the answer is no, then it's our duty as a country to protect our soldiers and make sure they face justice under our laws, where they'll get a fair trial.
If the court works the way it is supposed to, then yes. And by that statement, all courts should be called into question as to their impartiality.
Let me ask you this, were the Nuremberg Trials fair because all of the accused were being judged by the people they attacked?

[Ray G.]

That's what our country is. And unless their lawyers get their own dream team of jury members, I doubt their view of the case would be much different.

True, but in many European countries, a lot of people view the entire Iraq war as a war crime. I think there's no doubt that the world court would be very hard on our soldiers. Plus, do they even have the same standards of beyond a reasonable doubt that US courts do? I'm just not comfortable with soldiers being tried by a court that doesn't follow the Constitution.

[Ray G.]

If the court works the way it is supposed to, then yes. And by that statement, all courts should be called into question as to their impartiality.
Let me ask you this, were the Nuremberg Trials fair because all of the accused were being judged by the people they attacked?

The US is not a defeated power, and this is an isolated incident for which the guilty parties have been caught. It's very different from Nuremberg, which was carried out as well as it could be given the circumstances. Given the US' history, I think it's safe to say that these soldiers will get a fair but not easy trial. Under our laws.

It's really no different from the fact that Saddam will be tried by Iraqis for his crimes. He's their responsibility.

[wabi-sabi]

True, but in many European countries, a lot of people view the entire Iraq war as a war crime. I think there's no doubt that the world court would be very hard on our soldiers. Plus, do they even have the same standards of beyond a reasonable doubt that US courts do? I'm just not comfortable with soldiers being tried by a court that doesn't follow the Constitution.
They should be very hard on our soldiers. We invaded a sovereign country Ray without provocation and on dubious evidence. We have a responsibility to hold our troops to a higher standard if we are supposed to be the ones doing what is "right".

[Ray G.]

They should be very hard on our soldiers. We invaded a sovereign country Ray without provocation and on dubious evidence. We have a responsibility to hold our troops to a higher standard if we are supposed to be the ones doing what is "right".

Do you believe that a European court would have a bias against our soldiers because of what you believe is the illegitimacy of the Iraq war?

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

The US is not a defeated power, and this is an isolated incident for which the guilty parties have been caught. It's very different from Nuremberg, which was carried out as well as it could be given the circumstances. Given the US' history, I think it's safe to say that these soldiers will get a fair but not easy trial. Under our laws.

It's really no different from the fact that Saddam will be tried by Iraqis for his crimes. He's their responsibility.
Most of his crimes were also committed against Iraqis. I say let the same happen to these guys.

[wabi-sabi]

Do you believe that a European court would have a bias against our soldiers because of what you believe is the illegitimacy of the Iraq war?
Depends upon which European countries are comprising the court. And I believe that if the soldiers are tried in an American court there will also be a bias in their favor, simply for the fact that American do not want to believe their soldiers are capable of this.

[Ray G.]

Most of his crimes were also committed against Iraqis. I say let the same happen to these guys.

They disgraced the US military with their crimes, and I think it's very important to show that we take care of our own messes.

Eh, I don't think I'm going to come to a middle ground with anyone on this issue, so let's leave it like this. I think we all agree that if these guys did what they're accused of, they should never be let out of prison. Which prison they go to is sort of irrelevant at the end of the day.

[wabi-sabi]

They disgraced the US military with their crimes, and I think it's very important to show that we take care of our own messes.

Eh, I don't think I'm going to come to a middle ground with anyone on this issue, so let's leave it like this. I think we all agree that if these guys did what they're accused of, they should never be let out of prison. Which prison they go to is sort of irrelevant at the end of the day.
I'll agree to disagree as well. And frankly, I never expected you to budge anyways. Although if they are guilty of what they are accused of, I think execution would be more appropriate.

[Ray G.]

I'll agree to disagree as well. And frankly, I never expected you to budge anyways. Although if they are guilty of what they are accused of, I think execution would be more appropriate.

I'm pretty sure the Hague doesn't have the death penalty anymore, so you should then be in favor of them being tried by Americans. ;)

I would probably lean against the death penalty in this case, because we may never be exactly sure how much the soldiers knew about who they were shooting at, but they very well may deserve it.

[Bill?]

American's don't commit war crimes. Just "Freedom boo-boo's".

:no:

[En Sabah Poo]

I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.

I thought murder was murder and they should be punished to the strictest possibility? Isn't that your old belief? The international law says people can be executed for war crimes. We've done it in the past. Are we supposed to stop now because its our troops instead of other peoples?

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

I thought murder was murder and they should be punished to the strictest possibility? Isn't that your old belief? The international law says people can be executed for war crimes. We've done it in the past. Are we supposed to stop now because its our troops instead of other peoples?
You're ok, for a Vikings fan. ;)

[Ray G.]

I thought murder was murder and they should be punished to the strictest possibility? Isn't that your old belief? The international law says people can be executed for war crimes. We've done it in the past. Are we supposed to stop now because its our troops instead of other peoples?

If I believed that they would get a fair trial, instead of being turned over to a mob that would be trying them more for the "crimes" of the US war in Iraq than for this specific crime, I would agree. But the US has proved time and time again that we take care of our own criminals in cases like this. They won't get off easy, but they'll get a fair trial.

[En Sabah Poo]

If I believed that they would get a fair trial, instead of being turned over to a mob that would be trying them more for the "crimes" of the US war in Iraq than for this specific crime, I would agree. But the US has proved time and time again that we take care of our own criminals in cases like this. They won't get off easy, but they'll get a fair trial.

I just think they should be handed over to the international court, because that is what has been done and should continue to be done. If not, it sorta just makes America look again like someone who only plays by the rules when it doesn't affect them.

[Ray G.]

I just think they should be handed over to the international court, because that is what has been done and should continue to be done. If not, it sorta just makes America look again like someone who only plays by the rules when it doesn't affect them.

We didn't sign on to the international court because we were worried about their due process rules. Therefore, I see no reason why US soldiers should be turned over to a court the US doesn't recognize. As I said, I will never support turning US citizens over to a court that doesn't obey the protections of the Constitution.

[Kody]

Regardless of this case or any other, I'm strongly opposed to any international government or world court. These 'officials' are not elected by my vote, therefore, they are not my government. The last thing this world needs is a government that's unelected, unaccountable and unremovable.

Say what you will about our system, but at any time, we can remove our President and replace him with someone we deem better suited for the job. Same goes for every other representative in office.

How can you find it so easy to simply relinquish your power over your own government and legal system in favor of an unelected government and unaccountable legal system?

[En Sabah Poo]

Regardless of this case or any other, I'm strongly opposed to any international government or world court. These 'officials' are not elected by my vote, therefore, they are not my government. The last thing this world needs is a government that's unelected, unaccountable and unremovable.

Say what you will about our system, but at any time, we can remove our President and replace him with someone we deem better suited for the job. Same goes for every other representative in office.

How can you find it so easy to simply relinquish your power over your own government and legal system in favor of an unelected government and unaccountable legal system?

Because our troops killed people that we do not represent. How can you trust our legal system to represent victims that they have no business representing?

[Ray G.]

Because our troops killed people that we do not represent. How can you trust our legal system to represent victims that they have no business representing?

How can you trust a foreign body to give our citizens a fair trial?

[En Sabah Poo]

How can you trust a foreign body to give our citizens a fair trial?

Dont you think its happened in the past?

[En Sabah Poo]

Besides, if you go to other countries and start murdering people, why the hell should there be a right to be prosecuted under American law? Who cares if they're in the military under orders. They acted out of the scope of their duties. They're just lucky they're not subject to Iraq/Muslim law.

[Kody]

Besides, if you go to other countries and start murdering people, why the hell should there be a right to be prosecuted under American law? Who cares if they're in the military under orders. They acted out of the scope of their duties. They're just lucky they're not subject to Iraq/Muslim law.

Sorry, but I don't see how this explains why an international court should have any more jurisdiction over an American soldier than our own elected government. Especially if the crime wasn't on international land.

[batmanbooyah]

Sorry, but I don't see how this explains why an international court should have any more jurisdiction over an American soldier than our own elected government. Especially if the crime wasn't on international land.


he might mean let the iraqi's handle the punishments.

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

History is written by the victors. It's too early to tell yet.

[Kody]

he might mean let the iraqi's handle the punishments.

Maybe it's just me, but allowing a country like say, Iran, to host a trial of an American soldier would be a lot like letting the KKK hold a trial against an African American. There's a very clear bias involved, a built-in hate of the defendant. Certainly you can't consider that a fair trial.

[Mr. E!]

God help me, I'm with Ray on this one. They need to be charged under the Military Code, put up for court martial, and thrown in jail.
And then we need to go after the bastards who trumped up this fucking war in the first place, and put them in the cells right next to 'em. Because let's face it, if Georgie boy and his cronies from the Project for the New American Century didn't have such a hard on for a permanent American presence in the Middle East, those soldiers would have never been in the position to massacre anyone.

[Kody]

And then we need to go after the bastards who trumped up this fucking war in the first place

And in our system of government, you have that opportunity. You have no such power over a world government and world court system.

[NATE!]

I don't see any problem with letting our own government handle it. Look at the whole "Abu Ghahib/Human Pyramid/Leash" incident and what the instigators got for it. And that was a hell of a lot less intense than this.

[Mr. E!]

Anyhow, the whole idea that come up about the US not signing off on international organizations that don't follow our legal code isn't really relevant anymore. We pick and choose the ones that are most beneficial to us. The US has signed several treaties with the World Bank and the IMF that make a mockery of US law and legal procedure, but that's all right because we usually make out well on the deal.

[En Sabah Poo]

Maybe it's just me, but allowing a country like say, Iran, to host a trial of an American soldier would be a lot like letting the KKK hold a trial against an African American. There's a very clear bias involved, a built-in hate of the defendant. Certainly you can't consider that a fair trial.

The KKK isn't a nation with its own citizens. In any other situation, any citizen should be tried under the law of the country whos law he has violated. I don't find it vital he be tried by our military, since he wasn't acting within the scope of his duties.

[En Sabah Poo]

Do you guys think if we caught a terrorist here (an enemy combatant which should be the same as a US soldier in times of war) murdering people in our country, we should send him back to his home country for trial? (regardless of where he lives).

[Ray G.]

Do you guys think if we caught a terrorist here (an enemy combatant which should be the same as a US soldier in times of war) murdering people in our country, we should send him back to his home country for trial? (regardless of where he lives).

A terrorist is a stateless criminal, so the comparison is wrong.

Do I think that if we found an enemy soldier trying to sabotage us here, we should send them back? No, because the US is not currently under the control of an occupying nation. As an occupying nation, it's our responsibility to keep a leash on our military and hold them responsible for their crimes.

It's not a perfectly fair solution, but it's the best one that we'll get.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

God help me, I'm with Ray on this one. They need to be charged under the Military Code, put up for court martial, and thrown in jail.

i agree with him too.
:cry:


And then we need to go after the bastards who trumped up this fucking war in the first place, and put them in the cells right next to 'em. Because let's face it, if Georgie boy and his cronies from the Project for the New American Century didn't have such a hard on for a permanent American presence in the Middle East, those soldiers would have never been in the position to massacre anyone.

bush and his cronies will never be held accountable for their crimes and mistakes. that's no longer the american way.
:?

[Fusion]

I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.

Shouldn't all people who comit war crimes be treated equally? Or is that unless they are American? I guess Accountablitiy is subjective.

[Ray G.]

Shouldn't all people who comit war crimes be treated equally? Or is that unless they are American? I guess Accountablitiy is subjective.

They are being held accountable. To US law. I don't get the problem here.

[Fusion]

They are being held accountable. To US law. I don't get the problem here.

When the United States government is involved, US Law and IMPARTIAL JUSTICE doesn't mean shit.

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

I'm strongly opposed to turning our troops over to foreign authorities. They should be court-martialed and if found guilty due to overwhelming evidence, sent to prison for the rest of their lives. We can't be allowed to turn into our enemies. This is something that there has to be a strong stance against for us to have any moral credibility in the world.
We are their enemy Ray. We occupied their country.

[Ray G.]

We are their enemy Ray. We occupied their country.

I agree that most Iraqis view us as their enemy. Which is why I would never want our soldiers to be at their mercy.

I think in the current climate, if there's enough evidence against these troops, they'll be convicted and locked up for life in a military court. I think that'll be the cleanest outcome for all involved.

[Yannick]

Okay for the guys in the platoon being court-martialed (understanding that they get a fair judgment and that said judgment is applied all the way - ie: if death is the answer, even though I'm against death penalty it is not my place to condemn military rules, which are rules on their own). Now I have more problems with what followed the incident.

Looks like some army (officials?) approached remaining members of the slaughtered families and offered them 2.500 $ as a compensation for their loss. There must have been some kind of approval given for such money to be spent on civilians somewhere in the chain of command. I don't think (having been in the army) that just any guy with striped shoulders will just sign a release paper for that kind of money without knowing exactly what it's for, hence the guy must have known that the cover up was worth the price, hence knowledge of the fuck-up up the way of command.

Then you have to consider this : military rules for those who pressed the triggers, civilian trial for those who tried to cover it up.

[Gene Reginato]

A terrorist is a stateless criminal, so the comparison is wrong.

Do I think that if we found an enemy soldier trying to sabotage us here, we should send them back? No, because the US is not currently under the control of an occupying nation. As an occupying nation, it's our responsibility to keep a leash on our military and hold them responsible for their crimes.

It's not a perfectly fair solution, but it's the best one that we'll get.

Wow, no matter what argument is presented to you, your answer is: Whatever america wants! Are laws are better! Our courts unbiased! We are SUPERIOR!

[RebootedCorpse]

Gosh, what about the old law and order cannard that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about"?
Clearly, for international law to have any meaning, everyone has to be accountable to the World Court.

[Brad N.]

I've been hearing bits and pieces on this for awhile now, and saw the story on Countdown last night on MSNBC. I want to fucking cry. That shit made me feel dirty.

[Ray G.]

Wow, no matter what argument is presented to you, your answer is: Whatever america wants! Are laws are better! Our courts unbiased! We are SUPERIOR!

Where do you live? I'm curious if you're judging us from abroad, or if you have a self-loathing complex. Because the fact is, our protection for the accused is far and away better than any country in the world.

[Ray G.]

Gosh, what about the old law and order cannard that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about"?
Clearly, for international law to have any meaning, everyone has to be accountable to the World Court.

The US didn't sign onto the World Court for a reason. It doesn't provide for the same due-process protections that US courts do.

[RebootedCorpse]

Where do you live? I'm curious if you're judging us from abroad, or if you have a self-loathing complex. Because the fact is, our protection for the accused is far and away better than any country in the world.
That's totally wrong.:o
Most west Eurpean countries have rights that are the equal or superior to ours.

[mario]

That's totally wrong.:o
Most west Eurpean countries have rights that are the equal or superior to ours.

hih, indeed
poor Ray, so deluded

[Corwin: Bear Fighter]

Well, I don't believe the international court is a great idea to begin with. They've already proved themselves to have made some very questionable decisions(the indictment of Ariel Sharon).

:lol:

[Ray G.]

:lol:

Laugh away. The court is a joke, and opposing placing the US under its suspect authority was one of the first moves that endeared the GOP to me.

[Corwin: Bear Fighter]

Laugh away. The court is a joke, and opposing placing the US under its suspect authority was one of the first moves that endeared the GOP to me.

I'm sorry, but your delusions about Ariel Sharon make me laugh. :surrend:

[Masculine Todd]

---Disclaimer: I have nothing against those who serve in the armed forces. I respect their bravery and appreciate all they do to keep their country safe---

My ex-boyfriend is in the Marines. He is one of the nicest, most compassionate men you will ever meet and joined simply to serve his country. It was a noble gesture.

We tried the long-distance thing and it didn't work out, but during everyone of our conversations while he was in Iraq, he would talk about alot of his squadmates and their bloodlust. They would speak of wanting to "kill 'em all, civies or not, and let God sort 'em out" and all of that hateful, ignorant, sort of thing.

He would tell of how the higher-ups basically promoted an anti-Iraqi attitude for all of its persons, civilian or not, and that these boys were a product of that hate. We always hear about how "the enemy" has little love for the value of an American's life, but it can very well be vice-versa.

[Taxman]

I don't think that many end up getting charged with war crimes unless they are high up the ladder of a defeated military power. That is not the case here. In terms of a "fair trial" these guys aren't entitled to Orenthal or Duke LaCrosse-style prosecussion, they are subject to themilitary justice system.

[Taxman]

I don't think we've turned into our enemies, and I don't think this is directly Bush's fault. We need to look at the chain of command to see if orders were given at any point that would have allowed this to happen. http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/harry-truman.jpg

[Gene Reginato]

Where do you live? I'm curious if you're judging us from abroad, or if you have a self-loathing complex. Because the fact is, our protection for the accused is far and away better than any country in the world.

As people pointed out, there are several countries in the world with the same standards used in the USA, but that's not the point:my point is that you start try to argue sensibly, but when proven wrong, your answer is always that american shouldn't comply to other countries rules and regulations, because of the inherent superiority of the US system. I don't think anyone disagree the american system is good, but when you start arguing that the US view should be the correct one, despite the the world consensus, in every single topic, your arguments not only lose strength, but also make you look like a xenophobe.

[Taxman]

As people pointed out, there are several countries in the world with the same standards used in the USA, but that's not the point:my point is that you start try to argue sensibly, but when proven wrong, your answer is always that american shouldn't comply to other countries rules and regulations, because of the inherent superiority of the US system. I don't think anyone disagree the american system is good, but when you start arguing that the US view should be the correct one, despite the the world consensus, in every single topic, your arguments not only lose strength, but also make you look like a xenophobe.That view is one that is very popular in this country. Most especially among two groups; neo-cons, and those that know little to nothing about foreign nations.

[wabi-sabi]

That view is one that is very popular in this country. Most especially among two groups; neo-cons, and those that know little to nothing about foreign nations.
Which, unfortunately when combined, comprises the majority of the people in this country.