Originally posted by utherpendragon War is hell.
Its easy to be a arm chair analyst chess geek passing judgement on individuals in situations that they themselves have never been in.
Originally posted by FMF Wuterich was given a general discharge under honourable conditions.
I stand corrected; no hang on did you say honorable discharge LOL. But seriously this bloke is not a squaddie he's a sociopath. Has any of the brass been sanctioned in any way for him having a gun and being in command of other men with guns?
Originally posted by FMF The question is did Sgt Wuterich's actions receive appropriate punishment and does it constitute justice for his (and his men's) 24 civilian victims. Your attempt to personalize a disagreement over this issue with a deflecting comment about "a arm chair analyst chess geek" diminishes your analysis and detracts from any military dignity or respect-due that you may be trying to allude to.
Originally posted by FMF I wonder if the survivors and the victims' families agree with you.
I doubt it.
Like I was saying earlier, war is hell. Combat is a frigged up situation.
He certainly should not have been charged with murder as others here have suggested. And the powers that be know this.
Thats why he got a general under honorable. His career is over, no retirement, etc but his actions were not so bad (apparently) that they ruin his life over it.
Originally posted by utherpendragon I doubt it. Like I was saying earlier, war is hell. Combat is a frigged up situation.
This does not mean that justice was served, however. And your dismissive attitude towards 24 innocent people slaughtered and the survivors of the massacre and their relatives and families, perhaps demonstrates that your estimation of what does and does not constitute "justice" ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Originally posted by FMF This does not mean that justice was served, however. And your dismissive attitude towards 24 innocent people slaughtered and the survivors of the massacre and their relatives and families, perhaps demonstrates that your estimation of what does and does not constitute "justice" ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I said IMO (in my opinion).
You have a different one on the matter. Thats fine. What do you think should of been done ?
Originally posted by utherpendragon What do you think should of been done ?
Long stint in gaol for him and those who obeyed his orders; a lesson to all those military personnel who think saying "war is hell" is an excuse for mass murder of innocent civilians.
Originally posted by FMF Long stint in gaol for him and those who obeyed his orders; a lesson to all those military personnel who think saying "war is hell" is an excuse for mass murder of innocent civilians.
So you are convinced he is guilty of the charges brought against him then ? The prosecutor thought otherwise after the trial started. Thats why the the plea deal.
Prosecutors discovered that Sgt Dela Cruz lied about the entire story he told in court. And they knew that Mr. Tatum’s testimony and Sgt Mendoza’s testimony were irreconcilable. Neither could be believed individually AND each contradicted the other.
Originally posted by FMF Long stint in gaol for him and those who obeyed his orders; a lesson to all those military personnel who think saying "war is hell" is an excuse for mass murder of innocent civilians.
Originally posted by utherpendragon So you are convinced he is guilty of the charges brought against him then ? The prosecutor thought otherwise after the trial started. Thats why the the plea deal.
Yes. Long stint in gaol.
Prosecutors discovered that Sgt Dela Cruz lied about the entire story he told in court. And they knew that Mr. Tatum’s testimony and Sgt Mendoza’s testimony were irreconcilable. Neither could be believed individually AND each contradicted the other.
That will be why the charges against the six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted, then? Because they all lied or because what they said didn't add up?
Do you concede that 24 innocent civilians were murdered?
Like I was saying earlier, war is hell. Combat is a frigged up situation.
He certainly should not have been charged with murder as others here have suggested. And the powers that be know this.
Thats why he got a general under honorable. His career is over, no retirement, etc but his actions were not so bad (apparently) that they ruin his life over it.
You seem to imply that war is an occasion to commit mayhem with impunity.
How do you feel about rape and pillage as sort of an an apres firefight, just so that the troops can unwind a bit?
Sgt Frank Wuterich
22 Feb '12 02:00
Back to Top