Iraq Drowning Case
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143627,00.html

So what do you think about this? I myself am not seeing the point of making people jump into a river. What purpose other than tormenting them does this serve? Personally I hope the soldiers involved get found guilty and then dropped into the middle of the ocean. To bad I know that won't happen.

Exactly. What purpose would that serve?

I guess the idea was that tossing these two guys in the river was a better punishment than just flat-out shooting them. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but that seems to be the rationale.

How about you give them a stern warning then tell them to go home? Maybe take them in for an hour and let them know the severity of their offense. I'm sorry but last time I checked being out past 8 should not be punishable by death.

And how exactly can whether or not he is dead be up for debate? This some kinda of Schrodinger thing? He is both drowned and not drowned at the same time?

When there is a curfew in a wartorn country, it's probably best to obey it. I don't think a "stern warning" is the least bit realistic or practical, that having been said neither is forcing them to jump in the river.

Ok lets just shoot everyone who is out past curfew!

I remember reading about this a while back, sad to see that the maximum punishment is only 26 years in a military prison or nothing at all. The death penalty would be more suitable for these cold blooded killers. It is unimaginable that two men could be put to death for violating a curfew. Sometimes I wonder what possesses someone to kill innocent people like that without a second thought, like it's nothing at all. Twisted.

Usually it is a combination of ignorence, intollerence, ego, and lack of compassion.

Which probably all stems for an extremely disturbed childhood, as cliché as it may be, it is most plausible. Maybe not even childhood, but something traumatic has had to of occurred in their lifetimes to give them the mental capacity to do this, it is too abnormal. Is it not fulfilling enough to kill your enemy, but you have to kill innocent people as well? Unbelievable.

This isn't a curfew like the ones Mom and Dad used to impose on us when we were kids. These curfews aren't imposed because the soldiers want to make sure the Iraqi children are well rested for school the next day. They're a serious business.... they're imposed for safety reasons (both military and civilian).

Anything moving after curfew is a target, those 2 guys are lucky they weren't shot on sight. I'm not defending the actions of the accused, but the indignant outrage routine is getting overplayed.

Yes, something traumatic has happened in their lifetimes. It's called...war.

And, no, I'm in no way defending their actions. But a curfew in a warzone is not like a curfew in your neighborhood. The friendly police officer doesn't just come delivering you to your parents, at your doorstep. Violating curfew in a warzone can, and often is, dealt with by deadly force. That does not usually entail forcing violators to take a midnight swim.

I'm assuming they would hinge their argument on the fact that no body has been recovered.

it's just a mess. we're basically experimenting with ways to establish some order and stuff like this happens.

on a semi-related note, check out the gonzales hearings on cspan. this guy was a top gov't advisor on how far we can legally go in our treatment/interrogation of prisoners. yesterday it didn't seem like he could give a straight answer to anything.

Deadly force is usually 'justified' because the targets are assumed to be up to no good, and the soldiers don't want to risk themselves finding out. Deadly force on people in captivity is a completely different beast.

I'm not condeming them, I'm just noting the difference.

- While true that violating a curfew in a warzone will more than likely earn a pretty harsh penalty, the "punishment" meted out by US soldiers was gross and excessive.
- Even in a warzone, this is NOT the way to deal with curfew violators - that's what jails are for. Since the US imposed the curfew, then you would think that they had measures in place to deal with potential curfew violators, or at least one would hope this was the case. This incident makes it sound like the soldiers were instructed to kill violators on the spot, and so folks who have to work late at night, go to the emergency room at the hospital, et cetera, have to risk their lives in their own country in order to just simply function like normal human beings.

The defense attorney says the soldiers were within their "rights" to commit a crime (btw, the reason we are supposedly there is to give rights back to the people that Saddam took away) but what about the rights of the young man who was forced into the river, and ultimately to his death?

Doesn't sound too different from Saddam's regime.

No matter how much I dislike the current administration, and no matter how against the war I am, statements like these are ludicrous. Yes, the soldiers who ordered the civilians into the river were acting out of line they were still saving their own asses. Who's to say those civilians didn't have guns or bombs strapped to them? I think that if it were to come down to "Iraq Civilian Suicide Bombs US Camp After Guards Let Them Go" the loss would be greater than one civilian life. Self-preservation on the part of the soldiers is by no means similar to Saddam's regime of burning people's eyes out with acid or chopping off their limbs because they own a telephone or something. It was one incident, one civilian life lost, and the sergeant making the orders is being prosecuted for it...isn't that how things work?

Are you freaking kidding me? Do you realize WHY the curfews are in place? The insurgents use night time to plant bombs for the next day so they're in place when people crowd the markets, when the convoys are running, etc. A stern warning my ass.

This is more ludicrous than Ananas' statement. If you are referring to the individuals who were forced into the river, it is clear they didn't have any bombs or weapons strapped to them, otherwise, it would have been brought up in court and chances are more than likely that the victims would have used their weapons or bombs had they possessed them. Not only that, but I assume the soldiers would have gone through a completely different procedure had they feared or had reasonable suspicion that the civilians threatened their lives in anyway. This was just plain and simply a few soldiers abusing thier power and killing a innocent person. As much as you want the victims into terrorists, that is simply not the case.

Well, ludicrous would be your opinion. I've stated mine.

As for the guys carrying guns or bombs, you'd think the soldiers searched them when they first stopped them, wouldn't you?

Yes, one life lost, and a man up on charges for taking a life. It didn't have to be that way at all.

Saddam's regime was horrible. That doesn't mean we have the right to go in there and treat people in a similar manner and then think they deserve it just because.

Isn't a stern warning what Clinton gave Saddam? And what he gave the terrorists who attacked the U.S.S. Cole, and the WTC (the first time)?

I personally wouldn't want to search someone if they had a bomb on them.

This is an unfortunate, and isolated incident. These soldiers commited an obvious criminal offense and are charged with such. It is at least hopeful that the incident was noticed, and is being dealt with.
Warfare is never clean and proper, it is War and very messy. People die, and many are innocent. This is but one death out of what is likely hundreds a day, many of which (if investigated) would likely prove to be borderline murder, depending on the Yardstick used for measurment. We have sent a relatively untrained force into the very worst kind of warfare, where there is no defined enemy.
Personally, I am amazed we dont hear of this sort of "offense" on a daily basis, as it most likely occurs quite frequently. To those who supported this engagement in the first place, a reminder:

Be careful what you wish for.......................

Actually, Clinton blew up the Iraqi Intelligence Agency, in response to Saddam's attempted assasination (which was foiled) of former president Bush.

As far as I am aware, Saddam was never implicated in any terrorist activities directed at the USA since then.

Do you consider blowing up a building a stern warning?

What exactly are you referring to here? Care to elaborate?

How do you know? I've read numerous accounts of the killing of civilians. You have absolutely no idea whether it was isolated, so emphasising that word is completely inappropriate.

I'm not saying the Marines are going around killing innocents left, right and centre. But I'm certainly not sticking my head in the sand and refusing to believe that they are many of them pushing the legal limits, let alone the moral limits, of their actions.

Agree 100%. This is far more reasonable statement.

You know, this statement could just as easily come from an Al Queda training manual.

I agree. Yet just a few sentences you were saying it was "isolated". I think we all know this kind of thing happens a lot over there. And in every armed conflict.

Mr Mephisto

In June 1993, Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Agency. He then went on national TV and said it was in response to a foiled Iraqi plot to assasinate former president Bush while he was visiting Kuwait.

i·so·lat·ed Audio pronunciation of "isolated" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-ltd)
adj.

Separated from others; solitary or singular: Reporters in the field observed isolated instances of rebellion.

Perhaps clarification is in order....This is an isolated incident, in that it has been seperated from the day to day warfare and death this area deals with.
These soldiers have been isolated from thier peers due to actions percieved as outside normal brutality associated with such warfare.
The word Isolated has been highlighted to make a point, which I had hoped would be clear when taken in the context of the response.....I was obviously mistaken.

I'm fully aware of the definition of isolated. There's no need to be pompous.

This limited and pedantic use of the word, with the accompanying qualifications, could just as easily be applied to the phrase "The attack in which I shot an insurgent was an isolated incident from the attack the following day when you also shot an insurgent."

I thought I had made myself clear when I simply stated that this kind of thing is more common in warfare than you may have thought or implied... I was obviously mistaken.

Mr Mephisto

My apology for unintended offense.......good day.

I think we've got our wires crossed. You didn't offend me at all, and I certainly didn't mean to offend you. I was simply saying things like this are more common than any of us think.

Let's just agree that the internet is not a perfect medium for communicating the nuances of everday discussion, smile and move on. Deal?

Mr Mephisto