US Soldier sentenced [Archive]

Che a chara

24th March 2011, 08:39

24 years

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2011/03/post_3.html

I can only wonder, if there's that guy... there's probably more like him that they haven't' caught yet, some of them that they probably never will.

of course there's an awful lot more. this is just damage limitation and no doubt these soldiers involved have been sworn to secrecy and an oath of silence regarding other massacres and war crimes, and this has probably been implemented as unofficial policy across every other platoon and ranking, to give out the impression that the bad guys are out of action within the army and that the US military is abiding by the law.

Thug Lessons

24th March 2011, 09:36

of course there's an awful lot more. this is just damage limitation and no doubt these soldiers involved have been sworn to secrecy and an oath of silence regarding other massacres and war crimes, and this has probably been implemented as unofficial policy across every other platoon and ranking, to give out the impression that the bad guys are out of action within the army and that the US military is abiding by the law.

The thing that annoys me about these sort of conspiracy theories isn't so much that they're unfounded, but that they're so totally unnecessary. The US and its coalition partners kill civilians in the course of combat operations all the time, and the people responsible for this will never face charges because the established order considers this acceptable, if regrettable, collateral damage. If you want to find uncharged war criminals, don't look for shadowy dealings and pacts of secrecy, just open a newspaper.

Che a chara

24th March 2011, 09:49

The thing that annoys me about these sort of conspiracy theories isn't so much that they're unfounded, but that they're so totally unnecessary. The US and its coalition partners kill civilians in the course of combat operations all the time, and the people responsible for this will never face charges because the established order considers this acceptable, if regrettable, collateral damage. If you want to find uncharged war criminals, don't look for shadowy dealings and pacts of secrecy, just open a newspaper.

I agree for sure, but also do you not think that out of allegiance there wouldn't be soldiers keeping a vow of silence or turning the other cheek when being a witness or being knowledgeable to a war crime ? i say that sort of stuff is rife and rampant in most armies engaged in combat. the US imperialist PR machine is very good at duping the public, so why shouldn't it's armed militia be even worse considering the fact they are trigger happy, given impunity to use collateral damage as an excuse , and because of the high emotions and propaganda in regards to the US's "national security".

If it wasn't for wilileaks, other whistleblowers or people putting evidence into the public domain, these crimes would never be spoken off again. as i say, it's standard damage limitation procedure.

Dean

24th March 2011, 13:21

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The grievous nature of the crimes coupled with an inability to stifle public outrage (usually in the target state) seem to be the only functions that inspire the military to hold itself accountable. Wherever crimes can be completely erased from record - they are.

ComradeMan

24th March 2011, 13:33

Silent enim leges inter arma :(
For laws are silent when arms are raised

Cicero- Pro Milone

Latin reference if you're interested.
IV: XI Silent enim leges inter arma; nec se exspectari iubent, cum ei qui exspectare velit, ante iniusta poena luenda sit, quam iusta repetenda. Etsi persapienter et quodam modo tacite dat ipsa lex potestatem defendendi, quae non hominem occidi, sed esse cum telo hominis occidendi causa vetat; ut, cum causa non telum quaereretur, qui sui defendendi causa telo esset usus non minis occidendi causa habuisse telum iudicaretur. Quapropter hoc maneat in causa, iudices, non enim dubito quin probaturus sim vobis defensionem meam, si id memineritis quod oblivisci non potestis, insidiatorem iure interfici posse.

empiredestoryer

24th March 2011, 16:28

its not only the scum that serve in the us army that try to cover up murders of civilians its always the terrorist state of the usa that does too they are two of a kind

Lt. Ferret

25th March 2011, 03:23

its not only the scum that serve in the us army that try to cover up murders of civilians its always the terrorist state of the usa that does too they are two of a kind

oh shut the fuck up. yes they are scum and yes they are going to be sentenced to 24 years in a military prison. theyll wish they were dead soon enough.

Ele'ill

25th March 2011, 03:26

oh shut the fuck up. yes they are scum and yes they are going to be sentenced to 24 years in a military prison. theyll wish they were dead soon enough.

So then you've just told yourself to shut the fuck up?

PhoenixAsh

25th March 2011, 03:40

This kind of behaviour is actually stimulated by the rethorics and practices of the system these soldiers are sent to war by....it creates a dehuminizing mindset which actually portrays the enemy as subhuman.

Now...personally I think he probably got 21 years for using drugs and 1 year for each killing. Thats more like the system I know from the army...

Its probably not the only case and it will most definately not be the last.

I agree further with the several previous posts which stated that the entire war is in fact organised and rationalised jusification for murder.

Lt. Ferret

25th March 2011, 04:01

So then you've just told yourself to shut the fuck up?

no?

Ele'ill

25th March 2011, 04:02

no?

You just restated what they said.

Lt. Ferret

25th March 2011, 04:04

not the part where the united states is a gigantic genocidal terror state.

Ele'ill

25th March 2011, 04:16

not the part where the united states is a gigantic genocidal terror state.

But it is.

Lt. Ferret

25th March 2011, 05:31

as much as any other power in all history is to the extent of its abilities.

#FF0000

25th March 2011, 05:43

as much as any other power in all history is to the extent of its abilities.

yeah

RGacky3

25th March 2011, 09:26

as much as any other power in all history is to the extent of its abilities.

Yeah ... and? Are you ok with that?

Lt. Ferret

25th March 2011, 13:02

Yeah ... and? Are you ok with that?

alternative being...? dont act like the Reds aren't vicious monsters to everyone they conquer. the Americans have the tact to throw it's monsters in jail, for the most part.

RGacky3

25th March 2011, 13:15

Alternative being not having empires and imperialism.

PhoenixAsh

25th March 2011, 13:21

alternative being...? dont act like the Reds aren't vicious monsters to everyone they conquer. the Americans have the tact to throw it's monsters in jail, for the most part.

The alternative is not reds...there is actually a whole scope of possibilities...the most immediate one that springs to mind is not being a vicious monster and not conquering or dominating.

The same actions in others does not justify the action itself.

The reds thown their monsters in jail to. Problem with both sides....its usually the small monsters which do the time. The big ones go on to become president, vice-president or gain other positions of power and influence.

Thirsty Crow

25th March 2011, 13:26

alternative being...? dont act like the Reds aren't vicious monsters to everyone they conquer. the Americans have the tact to throw it's monsters in jail, for the most part.
Which "Reds" have recently conquered anyone?
And what about the monsters operating as planners and commanders, as opposed to those who act directly? Would you argue that they are not in fact monsters but rather benevolent men in power who act in order that freedom may be enshrined and protected (in, let's say, Nicaragua, during the 80s, and El Salvador)? Or, if you do think that these acts are not justifiable - would you argue that these men were thrown in jail?

Amphictyonis

25th March 2011, 13:59

24 years

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2011/03/post_3.html

Such bullshit. What this does is allow the state to posture and pose as the moral authority. Don't get me wrong, I think this soldier is a scum bag but the real scum bags are the ones ordering him around. The real scum bags are the ones responsible for these meat heads even being there. The real scum bags are the high command who order mass bombings of civilians via unmanned drones. Conspiracy to kill civilians? Seriously? By those standards Obama should be in the cell next to him. The real scum bags are the politicians who ordered this war. The real scum bags are the capitalists who are behind the politicians. All this sociopath soldier is is a way for the US government to publicly posture as some sort of "fair but stern" global father figure. Fuck that. How many civilians have died as an intimidate result of Obama's approval of unmanned drone bombings? How many civilians have died as a result of bombings in general? How many civilians have died as a result of the fucking war? Total mind phuc. This is all they're doing- they don't give a shit about civilians.

empiredestoryer

25th March 2011, 14:34

oh shut the fuck up. yes they are scum and yes they are going to be sentenced to 24 years in a military prison. theyll wish they were dead soon enough.
dont tell to shut up you muppet i bet you served with the us army didnt you the new waffen s s on the block

Ele'ill

25th March 2011, 22:07

Such bullshit. What this does is allow the state to posture and pose as the moral authority. Don't get me wrong, I think this soldier is a scum bag but the real scum bags are the ones ordering him around. The real scum bags are the ones responsible for these meat heads even being there. The real scum bags are the high command who order mass bombings of civilians via unmanned drones. Conspiracy to kill civilians? Seriously? By those standards Obama should be in the cell next to him. The real scum bags are the politicians who ordered this war. The real scum bags are the capitalists who are behind the politicians. All this sociopath soldier is is a way for the US government to publicly posture as some sort of "fair but stern" global father figure. Fuck that. How many civilians have died as an intimidate result of Obama's approval of unmanned drone bombings? How many civilians have died as a result of bombings in general? How many civilians have died as a result of the fucking war? Total mind phuc. This is all they're doing- they don't give a shit about civilians.

I posted the article to highlight the murders committed.

PhoenixAsh

26th March 2011, 03:16

Such bullshit. What this does is allow the state to posture and pose as the moral authority. Don't get me wrong, I think this soldier is a scum bag but the real scum bags are the ones ordering him around. The real scum bags are the ones responsible for these meat heads even being there. The real scum bags are the high command who order mass bombings of civilians via unmanned drones. Conspiracy to kill civilians? Seriously? By those standards Obama should be in the cell next to him. The real scum bags are the politicians who ordered this war. The real scum bags are the capitalists who are behind the politicians. All this sociopath soldier is is a way for the US government to publicly posture as some sort of "fair but stern" global father figure. Fuck that. How many civilians have died as an intimidate result of Obama's approval of unmanned drone bombings? How many civilians have died as a result of bombings in general? How many civilians have died as a result of the fucking war? Total mind phuc. This is all they're doing- they don't give a shit about civilians.

So...not to disagree with your analysis here. But what do you suggest should be done to these soldiers?

Should we not prosecute and punish them because the bigger fish are allowed to walk?

Or should we perhaps advocate that ALL guilty parties should be prosecuted and held responsible for their deeds?

Lt. Ferret

26th March 2011, 06:12

dont tell to shut up you muppet i bet you served with the us army didnt you the new waffen s s on the block

currently serving with the US Army, training soldiers in conflict resolution and counter insurgency. My job saves lives, both American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

ChrisK

26th March 2011, 06:50

currently serving with the US Army, training soldiers in conflict resolution and counter insurgency. My job saves lives, both American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

They trust you with that job? Shit, no wonder things are so fucked up.

Lt. Ferret

26th March 2011, 07:26

u mad? :cool:

ChrisK

26th March 2011, 07:32

u mad? :cool:

Oh so furious. I'd be shaking in your little army booties if I were you. So so enraged.

:D

Lt. Ferret

26th March 2011, 07:52

im actually good at my job and we kill many a soldier (with laser tag-like equipment) who steps into our little nest of scum and villainy. i spend more time dressed as an arab insurgent than i do as an army soldier.

ChrisK

26th March 2011, 07:57

Lame. I was hoping for an old bald guy with a maniacal laugh.

Lt. Ferret

26th March 2011, 08:07

im a young man with a charming laugh. deal wit it.

PhoenixAsh

26th March 2011, 11:08

do you at least own a cat?

Lt. Ferret

26th March 2011, 17:03

i had a dog but the state of california took it away from me because i didnt pay their dog license.

PhoenixAsh

26th March 2011, 17:09

i had a dog but the state of california took it away from me because i didnt pay their dog license.

wow...no cat...you really suck at this whole evil thing don't you?

(sorry to hear about your dog btw)

masty

26th March 2011, 18:33

Thirsty Crow

27th March 2011, 15:55

currently serving with the US Army, training soldiers in conflict resolution and counter insurgency. My job saves lives, both American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
Instead of boasting around, how about you address the issue I've raised?

Lt. Ferret

28th March 2011, 07:05

Which "Reds" have recently conquered anyone?
And what about the monsters operating as planners and commanders, as opposed to those who act directly? Would you argue that they are not in fact monsters but rather benevolent men in power who act in order that freedom may be enshrined and protected (in, let's say, Nicaragua, during the 80s, and El Salvador)? Or, if you do think that these acts are not justifiable - would you argue that these men were thrown in jail?

If you give out unlawful orders you should be punished for them. Soldiers can refuse to follow an unlawful order. If the soldiers are acting improperly, or committing crimes or atrocities against the will of their commander, they should be in trouble, and not the commander.