Originally posted by RedmikeAs was mentioned by someone earlier, I'm suspicious of it because they don't want us there. And as the story said, there are many different versions of the story.
Why?
Don't you think that, in Iraq, there's a fairly high probability that witnesses to crimes like this (or any other) will be Iraqi?
Edit - I'd be more suspicious if all 8 witnesses were, say, Icelandic.
Originally posted by PocketKingsBut I thought the US was liberating the Iraqis from a nastybadman? Why would every Iraqi not want you there now?
As was mentioned by someone earlier, I'm suspicious of it because they don't want us there. And as the story said, there are many different versions of the story.
If they don't want you there, does that deprive them of their right (obligation) to report a crime?
What would you prefer they had done? Said nothing? If we're liberating the place, I'd have thought that would have meant restoring the rule of law, for everyone.
They are like us. They get up every morning, go to the bathroom, get cleaned up and go to work. After work they come home and relax. Water worked, electricity worked, sewers worked, had places of employment and homes. Like us, as long as things the government did had no direct effect on them, they were pretty OK. War disrupts all that and starts affecting them as individuals. Killings, bombings, foreign troops in town. No electric, water, sewers, places of employment and homes damaged or destroyed. Of course they want us to go home and get things back to “normal.”
Originally posted by PocketKingsBut who are "they"?
As was mentioned by someone earlier, I'm suspicious of it because they don't want us there. And as the story said, there are many different versions of the story.
Someone at work today commented that "they" must be very busy. All over the world, "they" are watching us, conspiring against us, and generally just saying things in what little time "they" have remaining.
The beliefs and attitude of each individual witness can be tested, in court, by the defence lawyers. Individuals, not some nebulous vague mass extracted from the enormous variety of views that inevitably must be present in a country with MILLIONS of people in it.
Originally posted by latex bishopYou must be joking.
Do you have issue with that they were accused in the first place, or if guilty they face the death penalty?
It will have to be up to the courts to decide the guilt of the case, to assess the evidence. If an Iraqi court of law is professional enough to give Sadam a fair trial it should be good enough for a couple of soliders.
Originally posted by orfeoWell put. A very tricky situation indeed.
This is precisely why troops have chains of command and orders and strict rules. To guard against soldiers 'taking matters into their own hands'.
It's debatable, of course, whether any amount of training and discipline can prepare soldiers to cope with the stresses of being in a situation where their lives are constantly at risk. It's also debatable wheth ...[text shortened]... e is no reason why it shouldn't be at least possible for a soldier to be tried for murder.
Conditions like that, day after day, can send otherwise normal people temporaily round the bend.
Too many people pontificating on situations and circumstances that they have never experienced. How many of you have ever been in combat? How many of you have ever been in a country that was torn by war? The soldiers (unless they are nut cases) want to go home and the civilians (unless they are nut cases) want life to get back to some semblance of normal.
It’s one thing to sit behind the computer, all safe and sound, and assess the situation. Quite another to be walking around feeling like hair is growing on the back of you neck and not knowing when your guts may get blown into the trees…makes a fellow edgy!
Originally posted by orfeowhether it was an Iraqi citizen and the troops murdered him, or an iraqi insurgent who they shot and killed, neither of those want the US to be there.
But who are "they"?
Someone at work today commented that "they" must be very busy. All over the world, "they" are watching us, conspiring against us, and generally just saying things in what little time "they" have remaining.
The beliefs and attitude of each individual witness can be tested, in court, by the defence lawyers. Individuals, not some nebul ...[text shortened]... ety of views that inevitably must be present in a country with MILLIONS of people in it.
I'm not picking on Iraqi's, I'm not saying US troops are not capable of this, I'm suspicious and thought it would make an interesting debate. I saw the video's of US troops beating up Iraqi prisoners in the prison. I know this story very well could be true, but this story seems very shady to me
Originally posted by PocketKingsSorry, your answer doesn't quite make sense to me because you just talked about the person who DIED. He won't be a witness.
whether it was an Iraqi citizen and the troops murdered him, or an iraqi insurgent who they shot and killed, neither of those want the US to be there.
I'm not picking on Iraqi's, I'm not saying US troops are not capable of this, I'm suspicious and thought it would make an interesting debate. I saw the video's of US troops beating up Iraqi prisoners in ...[text shortened]... he prison. I know this story very well could be true, but this story seems very shady to me
Are you saying that either way, the witnesses were all friends/associate of the deceased who, rightly or wrongly, will want to see someone punished for his death?
That wasn't obvious from the news report, but it's possible I suppose. In which case, it's a scenario that has nothing to do with the war at all. Precisely the same problem arises in criminal trials back on 'home soil'. Someone dies, and the family/friends want 'justice'. I've seen it happen in my home city quite recently, where the accused person was someone I used to know. The family of the dead man refused to accept that no-one would be jailed when it was held he had been killed in self-defence.
If I'm understanding you correctly, then I would say that the fact the case has arisen in Iraq is a red herring. At its core, you have two groups of people, and members of one group have killed a member of the second group. The only basis for your concern is that you identify with the first group, and not with the second.
Originally posted by masscatAgreed. I guess you too have had some first-hand experience of those sorts of conditions.
Too many people pontificating on situations and circumstances that they have never experienced. How many of you have ever been in combat? How many of you have ever been in a country that was torn by war? The soldiers (unless they are nut cases) want to go home and the civilians (unless they are nut cases) want life to get back to some semblance of normal. ...[text shortened]... ack of you neck and not knowing when your guts may get blown into the trees…makes a fellow edgy!
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoOk, not the direction I was looking to go in this debate, but ok. First of all, I don't identify with either of them. Second, I'm not implying anything about the witnesses as to whether they are friends of the deceased or not, but that they are against the troops being there at all. Third, the scenerio has alot to do with the war. When warring in a foriegn country it is difficult to know friend from enemy, the enemies in uniform are not the only ones who you need to watch out for. And yes, the fact that a few Iraq citizens are the witnesses saying US troops murdered an innocent victim does raise my suspicions. If you don't find that at least a little suspicious then you have alot of faith in humanity, and you will be dissapointed by it.
Sorry, your answer doesn't quite make sense to me because you just talked about the person who DIED. He won't be a witness.
Are you saying that either way, the witnesses were all friends/associate of the deceased who, rightly or wrongly, will want to see someone punished for his death?
That wasn't obvious from the news report, but it's possible I suppos for your concern is that you identify with the first group, and not with the second.
Originally posted by PocketKingsWhy tie him up if they were going to shoot him? The story sounds fishy already.
Currently, 8 US troops are awaiting trial in the killing of an Iraqi. If convicted they will face the death penalty. Iraqi witnesses, i repeat, Iraqi witnesses, say the soldiers tied him up, threw him in a hole and shot him. Then they took him out and put an AK-47 in his hands to make it look like he was an enemy.
Apparently there are several differe ...[text shortened]... nd a reference and post it
edit - http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/hamdaniya.ap/index.html
1 edit
Originally posted by slimjim?? They tied him up prior to transporting him from his home to where they shot him according to the charges. Maybe they wanted to go somewhere with less possible witnesses. Some of the defendents seem to have made incriminating statements to authorities though their counsel seem to be disputing wheteher the statements were uncoerced.
Why tie him up if they were going to shoot him? The story sounds fishy already.