Eight marines charged with Iraq murder

[HarmlessRabbit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Eight Marines Charged in Iraq Death

The Associated Press
Saturday, October 18, 2003; 12:12 PM

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Eight Marine reservists stationed at Camp Pendleton have been charged in connection with the June death of an Iraqi man who was held at a detention facility in Iraq, authorities said.

Two of the men, Maj. Clark A. Paulus and Lance Cpl. Christian Hernandez, face negligent homicide charges, said staff Sgt. Bill Lisbon, a Marine spokesman at Camp Pendleton. Charges against the other six range from assault to dereliction of duty.

"I think it's surprising because this is not what Marines do," Lisbon said Friday. "They don't do what these guys are being charged with."

All eight men, who belong to the 2nd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, are being held at Camp Pendleton.

Attorney Donald Rehkopf Jr., who represents another Marine reservist charged in the case, Lance Cpl. William Roy, said his client is innocent.

He declined to discuss specific evidence, but said the Army is supposed to handle POW facilities and the Marine reservists were untrained for the job.

"In the rush to war with Iraq, providing the mandatory training to reservists seems to have had little if any priority with the Pentagon," Rehkopf told the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle in Saturday's editions.

It was not immediately clear who the others' lawyers were.

Lisbon acknowledged the charges stemmed from a case in which an Iraqi man died while being detained by U.S. authorities. He would not, however, say whether the case in question was that of a 52-year-old Iraqi prisoner of war, whose corpse was found June 6 at a camp run by the 1st Marine Division near Nasiriyah. The man had been held at the camp in southern Iraq since his capture May 3.

Lisbon said Paulus and Hernandez also face lesser charges, including cruelty and maltreatment, and assault.

Roy and two others, Maj. William Vickers and Sgt. Gary Pittman, face charges ranging from dereliction of duty to cruelty.

The remaining three men, Sgt. Albert Rodriquez-Martinez, Lance Cpl. Andrew Rodney and Lance Cpl. Konstantin Mikholap, are charged with making false official statements and assault, Lisbon said.

The cases will be examined by the military equivalent of a grand jury, which will decide whether the men will be court-martialed.

Lisbon also would not say when the unit was activated for duty nor when it returned to the United States. The unit is in New York, he said.

In a separate case, four military police from a Pennsylvania-based Army Reserve unit were charged in July with punching, kicking and breaking bones of prisoners at Camp Bucca, the largest U.S.-run POW camp in Iraq. Those soldiers and their families have denied the accusations.

To me, this is yet another example of why Rumsfeld's ideas about war on-the-cheap are not workable. Here you have untrained reservists handling prisoners in stressful conditions, which results in the murder of a prisoner.

One of the accused is a major. I don't know if this is just because he was in charge or because he was directly involved, but it's sad to see such a large group of army personnel being charged with such a nasty crime.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
To me, this is yet another example of why Rumsfeld's ideas about war on-the-cheap are not workable. Here you have untrained reservists handling prisoners in stressful conditions, which results in the murder of a prisoner.

Ehh.. You don't have to go through any training to understand that assault and battery to the point of death are bad things. Then again, the details about the death are not in this article, but I really doubt that it is something that required more than common sense on the part of the accused.

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
One of the accused is a major. I don't know if this is just because he was in charge or because he was directly involved, but it's sad to see such a large group of army personnel being charged with such a nasty crime.

I think you are a bit backwards on this one. I think it's sad to see army personnel committing such a nasty crime, not for them to get charged for it.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by seretogis
I think you are a bit backwards on this one. I think it's sad to see army personnel committing such a nasty crime, not for them to get charged for it.

Heh, in parsing out my grammar I have to agree with you.

[chavos]

people under stress do do stupid things....this is known. would have additional training given them the ability to avoid being stupid? I dunno...

[Food Eater Lad]

You are correct, out of what 60,000 troops being used overseas in places like Iraq, Kosovo, Korea, the fact that 8 commit a crime means Rumsfeild is wrong?

Its called grasping at straws for those who dont know.

[chavos]

what would be a statistically significant ratio of atrocities, FEL?

[santafe5000]

Lack of training is no excuse for mistreatment of prisoner's. I'm sure there is probably more to the story that was not reported, but the prisoner's death was unwarrented, Unless the prisoner had gained access to a weapon, which was trying to use. The fact that Marine's were staffing a detention center, has no real bearing on the story. I'm sure the military will make every effort to see that the alleged perpetrator's are dealt with accordingly.

[pocon1]

Chavos,
certainly more than one.

I would like to find out more about the situation before passing judgement on it, and what our people are doing over there (in prison. I mean, not the whole war). This is why we have criminal investigations. We have no idea if the Iraqi brought it upon himself, like by attacking a guard, or if the soldiers actually murdered the prisoner.

[The_Dude]

face lesser charges, including cruelty and maltreatment, and assault

from dereliction of duty to cruelty.

charged with making false official statements and assault, Lisbon said.

punching, kicking and breaking bones of prisoners at Camp Bucca

I dont see how these can be blamed on poor training.

[Ustwo]

Its a tribute to the US that we prosecute people who do this sort of thing.

I don't see what issue you are trying to bring up here.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Its a tribute to the US that we prosecute people who do this sort of thing.

I don't see what issue you are trying to bring up here.

That untrained reservists are being deployed to jobs they aren't prepared for, and are committing crimes. I thought the article made that point pretty clear.

So, if I understand your point, the more crimes that soldiers commit and prosecute, the more tribute the USA deserves?

[Food Eater Lad]

No his point is that we take it seriously when military comit crimes. But you knew that, you just want to see the negative in anything that America is doing right. Just like most liberals.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
No his point is that we take it seriously when military comit crimes. But you knew that, you just want to see the negative in anything that America is doing right. Just like most liberals.

Actually, I'd like to discuss the greater implications of rumsfeld's war on-the-cheap policy. Unfortunately, you and Ustwo don't want to discuss anything, you just want to troll the board with your conservative beliefs.

When you or Ustwo are ready to discuss political issues rather than troll, I'll respond. From now on though, I have no interest in replying to content-free trolls from either of you.

What do you think of the article, Food Eater Lad? It, and the other article I posted about medical conditions for reservists in Georgia, seem to imply that Rumsfeld's attempt to conduct war in a new way isn't working very well. Several non-liberal generals have criticized Rumsfeld, and both of those articles came from Drudge Report. Matt Drudge is hardly a liberal.

I'm a liberal, however, and I'm proud of that. I care about the condition of the poor, including our troops and reservists, most of whom live in poverty are impacted quite severely by the Bush Administration's tax cuts for the rich and benefit reduction for the poor.

Let me know when you're ready to actually discuss something by bringing up your opinions and thoughts on an issue.

[Ustwo]

How well trained does someone have to be to not be violent?

This sort of thing has been going on in war since there has been war. I'm not sure what kind of training you would like to do, maybe sensitivity training? Empathy with the enemy?

I'm a liberal, however, and I'm proud of that. I care about the condition of the poor, including our troops and reservists, most of whom live in poverty are impacted quite severely by the Bush Administration's tax cuts for the rich and benefit reduction for the poor.

Ummm harmless, since the top 50% of the wage earners pay 97% of the taxes, how does one cut the taxes of someone not paying taxes? How are the poor hurt by Bush's tax cut? Why is it the governments job to steal money from me to give to someone else? If you feel so much for the poor, go work in a soup kitchen, and give YOUR money to them. I'm sure the money you spend on your internet connectivity would keep a hungry child fed all year. Why you feel YOU have the right to take what I earn and give to someone else is beyond me.

And reguardless, despite all the give aways, do we still have poverty? Do we still have crime? Are the schools better? Liberalism works on feelings, not results. Something a good parent teaches their child early on is the value of hard work, and that you can't just expect things handed to you, yet this lesson is lost on liberals giving away other peoples money.

I too care about the poor, but liberal programs don't slove poverty, they enable it.

[Astrocloud]

Alow me to play devil's advocate and voice the simple fact that these guys are only charged with a crime. They are still innocent until proven guilty.

There are a lot of hardcore resistance fighters and Iraqi irregulars still in Iraq. I bet if the guy they killed, managed to kill 2 or 3 marines and escape... This wouldn't have been in the news as anything more than just three more flags sent home. Meanwhile, who would've put the Iraqi on trial?

I just guess we won't know; we can't know -until we have more facts to consider.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
How well trained does someone have to be to not be violent?

This sort of thing has been going on in war since there has been war. I'm not sure what kind of training you would like to do, maybe sensitivity training? Empathy with the enemy?

These were reservists and apparently not trained in how to handle hostile prisoners who speak a foreign language. How much training do you need not to be violent? I'm sure any police officer or soldier could tell you that you need a hell of a lot more training to handle civilians properly than you do to engage in battle.

Your other points are interesting, but off-topic. Feel free to write up your thoughts into a new post. I'm interested in having a rational discussion about your points.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I'm sure any police officer or soldier could tell you that you need a hell of a lot more training to handle civilians properly than you do to engage in battle.

And look how often these 'well trained' cops get overly violent. From broom sticks in NY to Rodney King (though Rodney earned his beating in my book). The problem as I see it wasn't training, it was a couple of sick jerks (provided the charges are true) and some people who tried to cover for them.

If you expect some 500,000 men, under harsh conditions, to NEVER do something like this with 'training' you don't understand human nature very well.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Ustwo
The problem as I see it wasn't training, it was a couple of sick jerks (provided the charges are true) and some people who tried to cover for them.

Exactly. The attempt by some of you to link this with the actions of higher-ups is nothing but an attempt at a political jab. If Rumsfeld's policies truly were putting thousands of untrained reservists into jobs they couldn't handle, there would be thousands of screw-ups like this -- not just eight buddies that have a taste for blood.

On another note, can we please stay away from moronic generalizations of "all liberals" and "all conservatives?" It's really not helpful, especially since a couple of people who I would consider ultra-liberal have agreed with the "conservatives" on this thread.

P.S. My new avatar makes my posts look smart!

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Its a tribute to the US that we prosecute people who do this sort of thing.

I don't see what issue you are trying to bring up here.

if i remember properly, the US did not join the international court setup just for this.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by seretogis
Exactly. The attempt by some of you to link this with the actions of higher-ups is nothing but an attempt at a political jab. If Rumsfeld's policies truly were putting thousands of untrained reservists into jobs they couldn't handle, there would be thousands of screw-ups like this -- not just eight buddies that have a taste for blood.

Actually, that's what the article, linked by the conservative Matt Druge, said.

Facts from the case so far:
- These guys were reservists
- They didn't receive their supposedly mandatory training in handling prisoners
- Reservists aren't supposed to handle prisoners anyway, only full time soldiers should

Now, these are statements from the defendant's lawyer, so you can choose to believe or not believe them, but I believe they are valid points.

I'm apparently not alone in my beliefs. A quick search:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

Turns up this:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...5654-4779r.htm

Mr. Rumsfeld has no one to blame but himself for the turn of events. Mr. Rumsfeld is a gifted strategist, but as a "cheap hawk" he has been unwilling to commit sufficient resources to ensure success.
Secretary Rumsfeld came into office proclaiming a new paradigm of "decisive warfare" defined as the ability to march on an enemy's capital and overthrow its regime. This paradigm goes beyond the failure of the United States to march on Baghdad in 1991, it is a refutation of the indecisive "limited war" doctrine that led to failure in Vietnam. In carrying out this strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld initially weathered the criticism of retired military officers (serving as outlets for concerns within the high command) that not enough American troops had been sent into action.
Mr. Rumsfeld's glory was but fleeting, as ambushes and terrorist attacks filled the press with stories of American casualties and civil unrest. Though only pinpricks so far, further violence is encouraged by signs of irresolution. Begging the U.N. for help sends a message the United States does not have what it takes to fulfill the leadership role it has assumed.

And yes, your avatar does make you look smart.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit

I'm a liberal, however, and I'm proud of that. I care about the condition of the poor, including our troops and reservists, most of whom live in poverty are impacted quite severely by the Bush Administration's tax cuts for the rich and benefit reduction for the poor.

Now that's a laugh. Liberals caring about the "poor" military personnel. Interesting new philosophy being touted by the left with regard to the military. On one hand they want military spending cut and on the other they want soldiers to be paid more. Throw in the "sympathy" they have for those poor soldiers who are staying deployed longer than they were "promised" and you've got one of the biggest loads of horse crap I've seen in a long time.

Funny how the "tax cuts" done by the Bush administration are being blamed for everything from underpaid soldiers to social failures in the US. Just how far do you think a $ could possibly stretch?

[eple]

Originally posted by onetime2
. Just how far do you think a $ could possibly stretch?

well I guess $87 000 000 000 could get something done....

[Food Eater Lad]

Like make Iraq a decent viable part of the world, why liberals are agaisnt that and at the same time pretend to care about people is absurd. By the way in just this month alone, the US is Up 84 billion more than expected due to the upswing in the economy. So stop complaining about the money going to Iraq, at this point its almost found money.

[Astrocloud]

Strange how the thread has been jacked from about some soldiers in Iraq -to a Straw Man argument about "What Liberals think".

I would love to speak up but the quality of conversation just isn't to par with what certain people claim their IQ to be.

Example:

Q: What do you think about the soldiers in Iraq accused of murding someone.

A: Liberals suck.

It's a pretty pathetic substitute for intellectual discourse. I mean even if you hate someone else -at least do it in a unique or interesting way.

edited by rogue49 for over the top flashing rebuttal

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Actually, that's what the article, linked by the conservative Matt Druge, said.

'Conservative' Matt Druge nails both sides equally, so why the label?

The democrats are desprate for ANYTHING to pin on Bush. This is just a desperate attempt to blame the administration for the actions of a few individual soldiers. Oh and before you blame the Bush crew for this, who do you blame for this one?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Army unit accused of abusing Kosovar Albanian civilians while on peacekeeping duty was not properly trained for a mission that required "tempering their combat mentality," according to an Army investigative report released Monday.

The report detailed numerous acts of misconduct by several members of the 82nd Airborne Division and said their commanders shared blame for not taking action once apprised of the misbehavior.

As reported publicly in August during the rape-and-murder trial of Staff Sgt. Frank J. Ronghi, the Army investigators found evidence that several other soldiers were guilty of abusing Kosovar Albanian civilians.

Ronghi was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl. Nine other soldiers from his unit were given various forms of administrative punishment; the investigator recommended that commanders consider court-martialling some of the nine, but they were not.

I hope you get my point with this one eh?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I hope you get my point with this one eh?

And if I replied saying "The conservatives are desparate to pin anything on Clinton. You conservatives are pathetic." and didn't address the larger issue, I would be behaving just like you.

Throughout this whole thread, you have refused to discuss the issue.

The issue is whether Rumsfeld's attempt to conduct cheaper wars is causing problems like this. The fact that Rumsfeld is trying to make US warfare cheaper and use fewer troops is not disputed by anyone. Several high-profile generals have disputed his policies publicly, and rumsfeld has defended himself publicly.

These reservists were apparently on an assignment they shouldn't have been assigned, doing something they weren't trained for. Something tragic happened, and I'm interested in discussing the event in the context of Rumsfeld's new way of conducting war.

If you don't want to join that conversation, then frankly I have no interest in hearing you spout off "all you liberals" this or that.

[Kadath]

Uh, I just realized that the error I pointed out was deliberate.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by onetime2
Now that's a laugh. Liberals caring about the "poor" military personnel. Interesting new philosophy being touted by the left with regard to the military. On one hand they want military spending cut and on the other they want soldiers to be paid more. Throw in the "sympathy" they have for those poor soldiers who are staying deployed longer than they were "promised" and you've got one of the biggest loads of horse crap I've seen in a long time.

Oh, one more thing. edit by rogue49 My dad was a Master Tank Gunner in the army, I have an uncle that died from a land mine in Korea, and I have ALWAYS supported the troops on the ground. I don't support the war, but I support the troops. I am not a "they" I am a "me" with my own opinions and thoughts.

The Bush Administration has asked more of this military while treating the troops like crap, cutting troop pay, extending their tour of duty, and generally showing a lot of contempt for an all-volunteer, mostly-poor, mostly-minority army. I can care about the troops while thinking the policy of the administration towards the troops and the war is wrong.

edited by rogue49 for not knowing how to stop before I take things too personal and flame another member.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
And if I replied saying "The conservatives are desparate to pin anything on Clinton. You conservatives are pathetic." and didn't address the larger issue, I would be behaving just like you.

Throughout this whole thread, you have refused to discuss the issue.

The issue is whether Rumsfeld's attempt to conduct cheaper wars is causing problems like this. The fact that Rumsfeld is trying to make US warfare cheaper and use fewer troops is not disputed by anyone. Several high-profile generals have disputed his policies publicly, and rumsfeld has defended himself publicly.

These reservists were apparently on an assignment they shouldn't have been assigned, doing something they weren't trained for. Something tragic happened, and I'm interested in discussing the event in the context of Rumsfeld's new way of conducting war.

If you don't want to join that conversation, then frankly I have no interest in hearing you spout off "all you liberals" this or that.

Here is my answer then: No

Rumsfelds policy has NOTHING to do with this, any more then Clintons did in my above quote. The only difference is no one tried to blame Clinton for it, like some are trying with Bush. I thought I was clear that I didn't blame Rumsfeld.

I've said no indirectly many times before, now I'm saying it directly.

I'm not sure what conversation I'm not joining here, but I'm being quite clear that armies do "bad things" at times. I don’t blame Clinton for soldiers actions, and I knew you wouldn't which is why I posted that bit of article. Its the liberals desperate desire to nail Bush for something that always happens in war that is the real meat of this discussion. There is nothing unique about these 8 men that makes them any different then the 9 men in the rape, (and I didn't post the whole article, there were more abuses).

I also wonder if these are the same Generals that thought we would need 2 million troops to invade Iraq, or 500k to invade Afghanistan. Generals always want more men, more guns, more supplies, more, more, more, its the nature of the job I think. Generals complain all the time about anyone who might cut their budget or tell them to make due, god knows they complained about Clinton, they complain about Rumsfeld (and Bush), and they will complain about whoever comes next.

So in case I'm not clear, no its not Rumsfeld's fault, and I really don't understand why you have to get so hostile. I don’t agree with the idea that somehow this wouldn’t have happened if Rumsfeld had spent a few billion more. You can't look at this only as 'how is this war being run' and draw conclusions on it, without looking at past conflicts and what happened during them.

This sort of thing happens in war, the US unlike most other countries does its best to make sure the abuses don’t happen, and punish those who commit them. End of story.

[Food Eater Lad]

You mean its not Bush's fault? But thats what I was told to think...

[filtherton]

Whether you want to link it to rumsfeld or not, somebody fucked up for making these undertrained reservists do a job that reservists, much less undertrained reservists aren't supposed to do. Whether you can chalk that up to the fact that we seem to be fighting a "war on cheap"(not really that cheap) or not is up to you. I can't imagine what would be said if medics or engineers were asked to interrogate hostile prisoners and some atrocity level shit went down. Under normal circumstances i'm pretty sure that, if given the choice, the army would want people who are qualified to do the things that require qualification.
So i guess my question is, who is holding the army back? Responsibility lies somewhere, right?
The statement that atrocities are part of any military conflict, is unfortunately true(i wonder how many of these dandies we haven't heard about), but it seems like under these circumstances we are practically asking for it. If my 10 yr old cousin(or anyone else who doesn't know how to drive) gets behind the wheel of a car and proceeds to crash it i wouldn't just shake my head and say, "Car accidents are inevitable." There's obviously more to it than just the fact that car accidents do happen. I think we could very accurately attribute the accident to the fact that my cousin had no experience or training and really no business being behind the wheel.

I've heard the president marvel at the "humaneness" of our current war/occupation. I wonder how much more humane it would be if our soldiers were actually qualified to do the jobs the administration is asking them to do.

[debaser]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit


The issue is whether Rumsfeld's attempt to conduct cheaper wars is causing problems like this. The fact that Rumsfeld is trying to make US warfare cheaper and use fewer troops is not disputed by anyone. Several high-profile generals have disputed his policies publicly, and rumsfeld has defended himself publicly.

Did Rumsfeld lead to this aboration? No. But his policy of "War on the cheap" led to an increased number of casualties. Had we waited another few weeks and put 1st ID or 4th ID on the ground, there would have been adequate rear security for our assault forces, so incidents such as the overhyped Jessica Lynch issue would not have happened.

As far as these 8 men go, there are criminals in the army, and if war brings out the best in a man then it can also do the opposite. If convicted, they will spend a very long time making big rocks into small rocks, and rightfully so.

[debaser]

Another thing, the training required for this kind of thing is not rocket science. These men were guarding a prison, not interogating prisoners. This is a simple task that can be accomplished without in-depth training. The ecuse that they were improperly trained for the task is just that, an excuse made by a lawyer to defend his client.

[filtherton]

Yeah, i mean all of us could probably guard a prison effectively if we had to. Type "stanford prison experiment" in to google and see how the average person fares as prison guard.

[debaser]

The difference is that these people are disciplined soldiers, under the command of trained officers and subject to the UCMJ. All soldiers recieve training on the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of POWs.

[filtherton]

According to their lawyer these soldiers didn't actually recieve their mandatory training and, as reservists, shouldn't have been handling prisoners anyway.

[Ustwo]

A lawyer would never lie to reporters, right?

Nor does it matter for them, military trails don't go up before an LA Jury. Maybe they arn't guilty, and will get off, but they won't get off by blaming someone else for their cruelty.

[filtherton]

Whether he is lying is unknowable by any of us and is therefore irrelevant. Politicians have been known to lie, yet many people still trust them.

btw, if you're not going to address any substantial points in anything i am saying, please don't be the little fly that buzzes around my posts and whispers sweet, irrelevant techinicalities in my ear, for after this post i will do my best to ignore such mutterings.

[debaser]

Originally posted by filtherton
According to their lawyer these soldiers didn't actually recieve their mandatory training and, as reservists, shouldn't have been handling prisoners anyway.

As reservists they went through the exact same basic training as every other member of their branch of the armed forces (in this case Marines). They recieved the training.

The responsibility for this act rests on the individuals and their immediate commanders.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by filtherton
btw, if you're not going to address any substantial points in anything i am saying, please don't be the little fly that buzzes around my posts and whispers sweet, irrelevant techinicalities in my ear, for after this post i will do my best to ignore such mutterings.

Boy, you are touchy, just because I see your agument differently they you do, doesn't mean I am wrong. I think the most important thing you said was According to their lawyer which I pointed out as questionable. The lawyer said they didn't get the right training, which in terms of debate means nothing. Now if it turns out they didn't get the training then we can talk about it, but debating the merits of a case based on the words of a defense lawyer is futile. Have you ever heard a lawyer say 'Its all my clients fault, I don't know what got into them.' or the like?

But lets assume they didn't get the training, just for fun. Do you really think they didn't get the training budget because of Rumsfeld, or more likely because someone screwed up and they got out of it?