Kill 24 people, Get three months in Jail. God Bless America.

[Auron225]

Now if this was the other way around - some Iraqi soldiers mercilessly slaughtering American citizens... I wonder how it'd be different.

For those trying to justify this - Im sure you'd be a little less understanding if it was your family that was killed like this.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Thats actually Erwin Rommel, a WW2 German General :3

As in the nazi army? I agree that what america did with this situation was horrible, but nazis are far worse.

Seems like you might benefit from a bit of research on what kind of nazi Rommel was.

here are some starting points:

-He was a universally respected military commander.
-His unit was never accused of committing any war crimes.
-He ignored several orders to slaughter prisoners and ethnic targets.
-He was involved in an assassination attempt on Hitler.

Overall, im sure even most American military officers would agree he was a better officer and man than most ppl in the US army.

 

[Crazycat690]

This is just... wrong... Seriously, the US is turning into a fascist state! Look at the evidence!

1. They want to control and censor stuff on the net (with stuff like SOPA)
2. They do that anyway
3. The military can put anyone they dislike in prison
4. It's full of narrow-minded rascists
5. Other people than their own is obviously not worth anything

Seriously, isn't anyone worried? No one is going to do anything? Fine, as long as they stay out of my backyard the US is your problem now.

You are really quite knowledgeable about a stereotypical image of America, not so much about the actual country.

1. Some poeple trying to put a crappy act through =/= America.
2. No they don't.
3. Law enforcement agencies and the military can put a broad array of people in prison, without trial, and hold them indefinitely, yes.
4. Ironic, since you seem to be operating on stereotypes.
5. Says the person sterotyping America.

A challenger huh? Challenge accepted.

1. Nazy germany also started with only a few people, a group of people in the government...
2. Megaupload? They wanted to stop such things, that was in SOPA, and they could do it even without it. Also, you cant argue that USA actually welcome negative criticim.
3. Exactly, just like the Gestapo. I've never heard about anything like it in Europe.
4. I would love to think otherwise, and I know USA is full of good people, but they're obviously a minority...
5. If Finnish soldiers did the same thing I can promise they would have suffered alot more serious consequenses, seriously, those 3 months was probably just to make the press happier, well done indeed. Also, I didn't say that US citizens are less worth, I'm saying they would rather sacrifice 100 people in a random country over 10 Americans.

 

[Avaholic03]

Yes yes, fuck America and death to the infadels and all that.

Wow, you people act as if no other countries commit attrocities during war. I'm not saying that's a justification or anything, but seriously, war is hell. Lots of people do things they regret, and I guarantee this isn't even the worst incident. But until you're in the situation that those soldiers were in, I don't think you can sit behind your computer and judge their actions. I bet at least some people here would have done the same thing in the same situation.

Yeah untrained civilians probably would have shot a few people.

I doubt they would have shot women and children. But maybe 24 men. If they were all close together.

This is the same point I was making last night. It's not alright for trained police and military to act this way just because they panicked.

They should be trained to deal with panic. America is putting lives in the hands of people straight out of high school and only teaching how to end them.

Well, as you mentioned, these kids are straight out of high school, and most of them are joining the military because of lack of other options (i.e. college, job, etc.). In short, and with no intended offense to our military whom I respect deeply, they aren't exactly the cream of the intellectual crop. They are human, and despite all the training they receieve, they remain human. The soldiers on our front lines are at serious risk of psychological disorders like PTSD, and no amount of training will eliminate that.

I just think is utter bullshit that they are being judged by a bunch of people on the internet whos most trautmatic experience in life was probably that one time a homeless guy asked them for change as they walked out of Starbucks. People who apparently don't realize how forutnate they are to be so detached from what is going on in Iraq, and that they can't even come close to understanding what these people are going through.

 

[iRevanchist]

Thats actually Erwin Rommel, a WW2 German General :3

As in the nazi army? I agree that what america did with this situation was horrible, but nazis are far worse.

Seems like you might benefit from a bit of research on what kind of nazi Rommel was.

here are some starting points:

-He was a universally respected military commander.
-His unit was never accused of committing any war crimes.
-He ignored several orders to slaughter prisoners and ethnic targets.
-He was involved in an assassination attempt on Hitler.

Overall, im sure even most American military officers would agree he was a better officer and man than most ppl in the US army.

his bravery is admirable, but i doubt most military officers would say he was better than most of the ppl in the US army are. remember, most of our army is stationed in europe, south korea, and the US, not the middle east. there isn't much to screw-up in those places.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

Wasn't this made into a movie?

Asymmetrical warfare is a very, very ugly business and reading about these incidents almost makes you wish for 18th century rules: "Good guys in redcoats, bad guys in blue-go!"

 

[GrandmaFunk]

his bravery is admirable, but i doubt most military officers would say he was better than most of the ppl in the US army are. remember, most of our army is stationed in europe, south korea, and the US, not the middle east. there isn't much to screw-up in those places.

yikes, I certainly hope military officers strive to be better than just "not screwing up".

I'm confident in my earlier statement, the man is a legend and considered a military genius by most expert.

 

[Brandon237]

It is war. Despite what many people want to believe war has no rules, it is the very embodiment of might is right.

Yet we would demonize the enemy for doing the same things we do. Compare the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings to 9/11...

History is written by the victors...

Many of the "great" conquerors were just as bad, if not worse than the people they fought, but they won, their scholars and scribes wrote the books, in the end, they really could do whatever the hell they wanted with enough force. And the same is true today. Honestly, I think the USA losing another major conflict would be really good for the world at this point, the big dog is stretching the limits of what it can get away with.

And this is truly sick (back on topic), there is NO justification for killing 6 civilians who were totally unarmed, women and children, these soldiers should be locked up tight for the rest of their lives, at the very least, and it should be made public, so that others KNOW that they cannot do this crap. I cannot stand it when people who are meant to be the best trained, the exemplars of a country, the protectors do things like this. If you have a position of physical power over most people, given to you for the purpose of protection and keeping peace and you commit an atrocity like this... you have proven that you do not deserve a place in society.

 

[Yureina]

It sounds really awful, but... I wasn't there, so I have no idea how it actually went down. This was either an intentional act (which should get these guy's whacked), or it was an operation gone awry (aka, an accident).

I'll never know for sure which it is, and so I can't really decide what to do with these people.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

The people here trying to justify this makes me physically ill and ashamed to be apart of this website. This guy should be put in prison for life with no chance of parole in an Afghan prison, since that is where he committed this crime.

So rather than just making a blanket statement of outrage, want to qualify your opinion? Specifically, in regards to the people you're saying make you vomit? Here's my post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339677-Kill-24-people-Get-three-months-in-Jail-God-Bless-America?page=2#13742168] on the matter, or pick another if you like.

Yeah untrained civilians probably would have shot a few people.

I doubt they would have shot women and children. But maybe 24 men. If they were all close together.

Oh, God, that was hilarious. I can barely type. To think that-

Wait, you're serious? You're claiming that random people with guns (aka, militias) wouldn't kill civilians? Do they have some sort of hardwired, neural inhibitor that prevents them from committing war crimes?

But then again, since they're just civilians, I guess they can't commit war crimes. They'd just be regular crimes.

This is the same point I was making last night. It's not alright for trained police and military to act this way just because they panicked.

Hang on a second. So two people, the same in every regard except occupation, experience the exact same emotion...and one of them receives nods of understanding and pats on the back, while the other is told that he's somehow not supposed to be able to feel that way?

They should be trained to deal with panic. America is putting lives in the hands of people straight out of high school and only teaching how to end them.

Do you have any idea how military scholarships work? The only ones who join the military "straight out of high school" are ones who literally opted not to go to college. And even then, military academies are colleges in all but name, and universities have an ROTC program. If you "join" the military when you leave highschool, you're not actually getting a gun and going overseas until after your education.

Well, as you mentioned, these kids are straight out of high school, and most of them are joining the military because of lack of other options (i.e. college, job, etc.).

*facepalm* See above. Just...see above.

In short, and with no intended offense to our military whom I respect deeply, they aren't exactly the cream of the intellectual crop.

You just called them idiots. You clearly don't respect them very much.

Also, recruitment these days? They turn away applicants. There's a literal surplus of people who want to join the military, so if anything, our armed forces are only getting smarter by sheer virtue of competitive recruitment.

They are human, and despite all the training they receieve, they remain human. The soldiers on our front lines are at serious risk of psychological disorders like PTSD, and no amount of training will eliminate that.

I just think is utter bullshit that they are being judged by a bunch of people on the internet whos most trautmatic experience in life was probably that one time a homeless guy asked them for change as they walked out of Starbucks. People who apparently don't realize how forutnate they are to be so detached from what is going on in Iraq, and that they can't even come close to understanding what these people are going through.

...I've got mixed feelings about your post. On one hand, you've simultaneously insulted both enlisted soldiers and civilians for being idiots and latte-sipping yuppies (respectively). On the other, I agree about PTSD and know for a fact how easy it is to detach one's self from combat as a coping mechanism. Listen to any gunship pilot talking into their radios: they're either impassive as they carry out their work, or making casual smalltalk.

And the reason is simple: you can't have the luxury of immersing yourself in the gravity of taking a human life and the horrors of war and whatnot while still being expected to fight in a war.

Oh, I just fucking love how people try to justify this. Did you folks even read the bloody article? They went house-to-house killing men, women and kids. Then they tried to cover it up.

"Oh hey, we don't know what it's like!"

Their friend exploded a short time before this took place. Like, same morning. I'm pretty sure nobody here has gone through that.

They killed kids.

I marvel about how the deaths of men has become a statistic while the deaths of women/children is some sort of morality black-hole.

"War is hell, get over it!"

They killed kids.

Yeah, I'm sure they saw kids, sitting alone, and said, "Hey, fuck that kid!" Ever occur to you that someone might be, say, huddled over said child? And, being well-intentioned but stupid, thought that human bodies could actually stop close-range rifle bullets?

"Hey, it's stressful out there!"

Understatement of the year right there. I can see it now:

"Hey, honey, how was your day?"

"Ugh, totally stressful. The copier ran jammed right before my presentation, someone took my stapler, and Stan exploded."

"Oh my God! How did that happen?"

"Well, I think someone put the wrong size paper in the tray-"

You people fucking sicken me. I lack the eloquence to express the degree of sheer contempt with which I regard you. I feel ashamed to belong to the same damn species and relieved I don't have to endure the shame of sharing a homeland or nationality with you.

Oh, please. Get off your moral high horse. This isn't a formal war. Never was, and never will be. Maybe if you stopped and remembered who the other side is, maybe you'd actually understand why this guy was given such a light sentence.

Here, I'll even Google it for you: Child soldiers [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Child+soldiers].

A guerrilla war is bad enough. You're wearing a uniform and operating as any military ought to, and the enemy has decided to adopt "civilian" as their uniform, and "populated areas" as their bases of operation. Vietnam had one of the highest rates of PTSD and other psychological traumas in US war history for a reason. It was a war against an enemy that couldn't be distinguished from a civilian by anything other than a rifle in hand. Try and grasp the idea that literally anyone on the street could go home at night, pick up a mortar and ammunition, and then try and kill you and your colleagues while you sleep. Anyone.

It's not as common as it is in Africa, but do you really think that groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been 'above' using boys as soldiers? IF anything, they're one of the ultimate weapons of a guerrilla force: that soldier on the corner might be wary of a group of men walking towards him, but if a bunch of kids come up to him? He'll still be smiling and handing out ration bars when one of them pulls out a pistol and shoots him in the face. A Makarov [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makarov_PM] is a small enough gun for even a child to land a shot at close range, and its Russian-made, like most of the other weapons in their arsenal.

I just want to point out that I am in no way at all a neutral source of information, nor do I claim to be. I thought my feelings on this issue and American foreign policy in general were made clear in my posts.

I trust my news links to be the neutral sources of Information.

Right, let me rephrase that: when I said 'neutral,' I was leaning more toward 'reliable.' As in, saying "Fuck you America" damages the reliability of virtually everything you have to offer, neutral news sources included. It's just saying, "Fuck you America. And here is why I say that [links]." It colors your audiences' perception, and suddenly, an otherwise really reliable journal has become "That thing that made that guy say 'Fuck you America'."

 

[Pearwood]

Don't hate America, hate the politicians. Saying you hate America just makes your post inflammatory, saying you hate the politicians who made whatever rules let these psychopaths walk more or less free is a very reasonable view. As for the actual incident, the marines were attacked so lethal force was justified but killing unarmed civilians is a war crime. The killing of children is possibly the only case I feel the death penalty is the only response, there's no rehabilitating someone who can murder a child.

 

[Zhukov]

They killed kids.

I marvel about how the deaths of men has become a statistic while the deaths of women/children is some sort of morality black-hole.

I dwell on the killing of children because there's no excuse for it. An adult can at least be considered a potential threat, even if they are, y'know, huddled under their bed trying to stay alive.

But you're trying to tell me that an armed and trained soldier is justified in gunning down children? Yeah, that notion gets to fuck right off in short order. Or are you trying to say every kid in the area was a gun-toting child soldier? Considering that they recovered all of one AK-47 (a common household item in Iraq), I'm finding that idea a bit hard to believe.

Yeah, I'm sure they saw kids, sitting alone, and said, "Hey, fuck that kid!"

If you were to read an account of the incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings], you would find that isn't as far from the truth as you may wish to believe. They found a family of eight, including six kids, in a house and shot them. I don't know if they said, "Hey, fuck that family" before doing so.

Oh, they also stopped a taxi, ordered the five unarmed occupants out of the car and shot them in the street. That's probably worth noting as well.

Support the troops everybody. God bless our boys!

You people fucking sicken me. I lack the eloquence to express the degree of sheer contempt with which I regard you. I feel ashamed to belong to the same damn species and relieved I don't have to endure the shame of sharing a homeland or nationality with you.

Oh, please. Get off your moral high horse.

"You sicken and disgust me" is not a moral statements, equine or otherwise. It is a simple statement of sentiment, and one that holds true while reading your words.

Maybe if you stopped and remembered who the other side is, maybe you'd actually understand why this guy was given such a light sentence.

Uh huh.

"The other side are scumbags too! So killing civilians is A-Okay!"

Good to know.

...

Allow me to end by drawing your attention to one interesting little detail: the soldiers involved tried to cover it up. They claimed that the civilians that they personally shot were killed in the blast of the roadside bomb. That's not an exaggeration or even a lie of omission, that's a barefaced fabrication.

If your beloved soldiers felt the need to conceal the facts of what you apparently regard as a legit combat engagement, what does that tell you?

 

[Darth_Dude]

]Fuck You America

As you say with an american soldier as an avatar.
sorry, just thought it was a bit ironic

Thats actually Erwin Rommel, a WW2 German General :3

As in the nazi army? I agree that what america did with this situation was horrible, but nazis are far worse.

I'll just use what a person said below me,

"-He was a universally respected military commander.
-His unit was never accused of committing any war crimes.
-He ignored several orders to slaughter prisoners and ethnic targets.
-He was involved in an assassination attempt on Hitler."

The guy was a bloody hero (in my eyes at least)

 

[AlexWinter]

super quote

1. No I'm claiming that the people posting on The Escapist would have acted this way. I'm not saying that militias have some sense of honour and wouldn't kill civilians.

2. They are trained to deal with those emotions. A regular person panics and shoots. Happens all the time. Unfortunate. A trained member of a national military should also be trained to handle their emotions. I honestly don't even know how you can think that 24 people can be killed in a moment's panic.

3. No I do not know how military scholarships work. But that was not the point of that sentence.


Did you even read what I posted?

 

[Darth_Dude]

snip

I completely agree with everything you have said in this Thread. People trying to justify the murder of 24 people just sicken me.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I dwell on the killing of children because there's no excuse for it. An adult can at least be considered a potential threat, even if they are, y'know, huddled under their bed trying to stay alive.

So...kids can't use weapons? Pull the pin on a grenade? Millions of child soldiers didn't get the memo, I guess.

But you're trying to tell me that an armed and trained soldier is justified in gunning down children? Yeah, that notion gets to fuck right off in short order. Or are you trying to say every kid in the area was a gun-toting child soldier? Considering that they recovered all of one AK-47 (a common household item in Iraq), I'm finding that idea a bit hard to believe.

You're describing a hypothetical scenario where a statistically average soldier is placed in a field alongside a child with no external factors, then shoots him. But, I think this issue will get addressed later this post, so moving on...

If you were to read an account of the incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings], you would find that isn't as far from the truth as you may wish to believe. They found a family of eight, including six kids, in a house and shot them. I don't know if they said, "Hey, fuck that family" before doing so.

Wait...you just said there was a gun, right? Like, a military-grade assault rifle? Was it discovered after the killings, or was it seen during?

"You sicken and disgust me" is not a moral statements, equine or otherwise. It is a simple statement of sentiment, and one that holds true while reading your words.

...really?

Alright, here's how the phrase "You sicken and disgust me" breaks down: it implies that A) you're sufficiently high on the morality ladder to be physically ill upon reading this and B) anyone who isn't physically ill is morally bankrupt. So yeah. That's a moral high horse if I ever did see one. And making remarks about horses only makes it look like you think figures of speech are prominent people who are good at making speeches.

"The other side are scumbags too! So killing civilians is A-Okay!"

Good to know.

Funny that you cut away every piece of qualifying evidence that I provided along with that statement. It's almost like you couldn't think of any rebuttal, so you just rolled your eyes at a sentence you cherry-picked out of my post and called it a day.

Remember that part about guerrilla fighters turning civilian garb into the uniform of the enemy? Or how the use of child soldiers turns children into potential threats? Or did you just filter out all that bad stuff because you didn't want to start vomiting again?

Allow me to end by drawing your attention to one interesting little detail: the soldiers involved tried to cover it up. They claimed that the civilians that they personally shot were killed in the blast of the roadside bomb. That's not an exaggeration or even a lie of omission, that's a barefaced fabrication.

If your beloved soldiers felt the need to conceal the facts of what you apparently regard as a legit combat engagement, what does that tell you?

That's correct. Probably because actions made in the heat of the moment while under monumental duress and mental anguish don't look the same as they did once your head has time to clear.

There's a reasonably common phrase, "Would an innocent man run?" Yes, he would, because "innocent" does not mean "completely unrelated to the situation at hand." People who realize the gravity of their mistakes don't think about the circumstances that enabled them to come about: they only think of the worst case scenario, and of people like you who hurl everything from the day aside except the body count.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Although it's obviously a terrible thing, I have some sympathy for people who end up killing indiscriminantly after losing a squad member to a bomb and being fired upon.

Put me in that situation, and I can't promise you I wouldn't end up killing everyone I came across.

You stick troops in a warzone with lots of civilians around to fight an enemy they can't get to grips with...this is going to happen, you can't do much to stop it.

You can prosecute them, like what happens to murderers elsewhere. What if the soldier had taken his anger out on American citizens, or your family, would you have sympathy then? Civilians are civilians the world over. Fuck you.

And that's why people close to the victims of a crime aren't allowed to pass legal judgment on those responsible. Emotion isn't something that mixes well with justice, and that's especially the case for people who have reason to feel particularly strong about a case. That's why juries aren't allowed to have outside contact during their time as jurors: they have to make a judgment as outsiders, based solely on the facts presented in a court of law.

I don't deny what you're saying regarding the "What if it had been your family" thing, but I deny its applicability for determining the punishment for a crime.

 

[lordbyron227]

Well that's really unfortunate. If you really want to change this stuff, join JAG and become a prosecutor. Its been like 7 years since the massacre. Witnesses could have moved, disappeared or memories faded. Not too mention a f-ed chain of custody for evidence and little forensic evidence. What COULD a prosecutor do in this position huh. Unless you want the Military Courts to set a precedent that they should just convict based on public opinion which is what people are clamoring for here.

So yea, 3 months and a demotion from Staff Sgt. to Private is an appropriate punishment for the charges the he PLEAD down to (ie. dereliciton of duty). The original, more serious charges were involuntary manslaughter and/or aggravated assault if I remember correctly.