home

7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq

7 Marines and one sailor were charged with first degree murder and other crimes this week as the result of the killing of an Iraqi civilian.

In the case of the April killing of an Iraqi civilian, the allegation is that Marines pulled an unarmed man from his home on April 26 and shot him to death without provocation.

That makes 11 members of the military this week charged with murders in Iraq. The investigation into the Haditha killings of 24 civilians is still underway.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Poll: Europeans Don't Like Bush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by jazzcattg1 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    Naturally they are all low-level enlisted individuals-

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    Of course, Jazzcattg1. No good reasons to expect anyone in authority or any 'deciders' who sent them there to ever be accountable or accept the responsibility for this debacle, and for the destruction of the lives of both Iraqis and of US troops that they have caused. After all, "We have entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite." --- dubya

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    I heard a theory today that had the two captured then murdered soldiers fired first, they may have avoided capture. I wonder if they hesitated based on some knowledge of incidents like this....

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    who'd you hear that theory from, rumsfeld? rightwingers will use any lie and b.s. to pardon coldblooded, cowardly murder.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    i bet your one fine cover up your crimes cop.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by cmpnwtr on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    Has democracy arrived yet?? Freedom is on the march! Wars of occupation turn civilians into the enemy. Atrocities always result. Bush should be the one facing capital punishment instead of those marines. The blood is on his hands. He wanted this war and now thousands have to die and be maimed.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    I heard a theory today
    and I heard a theory that if we hadn't illegally invaded the country this wouldn't have happened.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    ...had the two captured then murdered soldiers fired first, they may have avoided capture.
    or even better: ....had the two captured then murdered soldiers not been in Iraq period, they would have avoided capture, but risked getting shot in the face.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:16:40 PM EST
    Of course, the charging of 7 junior enlisted Marines and Sailor makes perfect sense given the patterns of error and absent accountability applied to any officer or senior enlisted since the United States invaded Afghanistan and, later, Iraq. Unless, of course, anyone felt the cynicism and self-deception had reached its apogee, consider that just in the past week the Navy named as the new MACPON, master chief petter officer of the Navy (the senior enlisted advisor to the CNO, chief of naval operations), the former CMC, command master chief, of JTF Gitmo (joint task force Gitmo). As if further explanation was necessary, wrap your mind around the fact that the Navy just promoted the senior enlisted sailor from arguably the most unethical and amoral military command in the history of the world, to the post of exemplar and senior enlisted man to the entire, friggin Navy. Sounds like quite the man to emulate, one comfortable enough with leading the enlisted men of JTF-Gitmo by ignoring the standing orders that are Navy Regulations which require adherence to the Geneva Conventions. The behavioral illness continues to concentrate and along with it, the toxicity. Like begets like, so on and so forth. And so it goes.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    i bet your one fine cover up your crimes cop.
    BU, Can you try that again, in English this time?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:10:10 AM EST
    As far as personal responsibility is concerned, everyone who joins the US military should always remember that if a corrupt administration comes to power and decides to use you as cannon fodder for a war machine playing out some extremely far-fetched highly dubious undeniably draconian political machinations, you've got a right to say, HELL NO I WON'T GO!
    A couple of the Brits already took that route. Hopefully more will follow.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 06:39:14 AM EST
    I'm going to the west gate today (off of I-5) to support the troops. There is a growing local movement in Oceanside to protest this assinine stupidity. George Bush and his Republican and Democrat enablers are toast. To quote Joe Pesci: "F**k you, you f***ing f**ks!". To Bush and Cheney, Don't come to my town any more. We'll kick your ass. With extreme predjudice. Try it. I'm ready to die for my country RIGHT NOW. C'mon cowards, bring it HERE! I'll f**k you up big time, you sniveling cowards. COME ON!!!!!!

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 07:46:07 AM EST
    This was institutionalized murder. The marines and the sailor who killed this man were only the murder weapons. They are not the real murderers, and they need all the help, support and understanding that their country can offer them. They were and are used and placed in untenable situations by monsters and cheap greedy deceitful little killers. They need to be brought home. Not scapegoated and tried. Brought home. The murderers are the people who sent those soldiers to Iraq and the people who supported, and continue to support, the people who sent those soldiers there. Message from a Vet of My Lai time: "Our Descent Into Hell Has Begun" --Tony Swindell

    The narrowness of his vision is exactly how even the best and most humane soldier unwillingly becomes a monster, and the people who create war know this. Out of grief and rage, with the stench of his buddy's shredded flesh in his nostrils, the soldier stops asking questions and then begins making up his own rules with a rifle. He has touched the heart of darkness and there's no going back ever. Embracing the whore called war destroys morality, and doing all this in a dishonorable cause compounds the damage.
    ...
    That's why we who have been there must speak out forcefully. If it requires a stiff punch in the mouth to jump-start some addled neocon brains, so be it. And for anyone who gets their political truth from self-inflating whoopee cushions like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, it will come none too soon. To remain silent this time risks the loss of everything that our country stands for.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    The speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, demanded an investigation Wednesday into this week's bombing of a poultry farm in northern Iraq by U.S. warplanes, which he said killed "many innocent people." Iraqi police said 13 people, including children and elderly adults, died in the bombing northeast of Baquba.
    I guess it's not murder if you do it from the air with bombs.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    Aaron: are a bunch of young Marines, sailors and soldiers being used as scapegoats to distract our attention from the larger much more heinous crime of preemptive war without just cause. I've been lately wondering similarly, Aaron. With the stories of what happened in Haditha, and the murder of Imam Walid's family, and now this story and others coming so close on the heels of each other, it is starting to feel like an orchestrated desensitizing campaign by the MSM. I can imagine someone scheming "maybe we can lower the intensity of emotion in the anti-war segment of the population by overloading them with disgust and getting them to a point where these reports of atrocities generate nothing more than a 'ho-hum... there they go again... what else is new?'" attitude.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    I'm assuming that the sailor was a corpsman, right? I have heard that they are using squids as convoy guards, now.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by chuckj on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    Most of you seem to presume that the 7 Marines are guilty and are referring to them as such. But remember, they are inocent until proven otherwise. To think that they're guilty before that is wrong, and even quite foolish. Also, I read much in these comments about it being a crime to invade Iraq, or charging Bush with war crimes for invading, etc. Those of you who think this way should realize that starting a war or invading a country is not a crime by any international law, Geneva Conventions Agreements, or US law. "The Law of Land Warfare" clearly states how war is conducted, not whether you may or may not start a war. It's perfectly legal to start a war. Now, reparations are another subject that could be used. In the future, if Iraq wins the war, they could bring a case to international court to sue the US for damages caused by the war, aka reparations. But they could just as well sue the Sunni's (Bathe Party) for the same thing. It all depends on the Iraqi government after it's over. So my friends, please do a little research before you write, and try to take your knee-jerk emotions out of the process. You'll see it a little clearer.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    Ernesto: A couple of the Brits already took that route. Hopefully more will follow. Not only Brits. At least one American officer as well... Officer at Fort Lewis calls Iraq war illegal, refuses order to go:
    In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation. 1st Lt. Ehren Watada was scheduled to make his first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany the Stryker brigade troops puts him at risk of court martial and years of prison time. "I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order -- including the order to go to war."

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:41:50 AM EST
    So my friends, please do a little research before you write, and try to take your knee-jerk emotions out of the process. You'll see it a little clearer.
    Nice hijack pal. You are the one that needs to do some research. Yes, like Hitler, Bush has lawyers like John 'Touture' Yoo, and Abu Gonzales, rewriting American Law to so that warcrimes are legal. Obviously you are comfortable with that. Most of us here are not.
    The NĂĽrnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the NĂĽrnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.
    link

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    The UN Charter does not allow the use of force except for self defence, unless explicitly approved by the Security council. Which is one of the many reasons Bush wants the UN, the International court close down.
    In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the necessity for preemptive attacks against its neighbors and instead outlawed preventive war as a crime against the peace. In the Tribunal's judgment, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
    link

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by chuckj on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    "Aggression" is the main phrase in that wording. The Iraq war is not that of aggression. In warfare, that would imply conquest of land, resources or other items to take possession of. If Bush saw the situation as needed for our safety, or to rid that country of a dangerous leader, then that could be considered "defense". If this is not the case, and it was a lie, then the goverenment of Iraq could sue for reparations or war crimes against him in international court. And even then, he'd be inocent until proven guilty. So again, take the emotions out of it and think clearly before making statements or even opinions.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    chuckj' read my entire post and stop shuckin and jivin.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    Never takes 'em long, does it Soc?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    If Bush saw the situation as needed for our safety, or to rid that country of a dangerous leader, then that could be considered "defense".
    I didn't see this "out" in the Nuremberg Tribunal documents. Can you show it to us?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by chuckj on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't agree with Bush. I don't think that the war was for defense. But no other legitimate government or the UN is talking about war crimes for him. It just doesn't hold water. If Bush believed it was for defense, and as head of the US military, then it's within his constitutional right to use force. Even if he was wrong, it still wouldn't be a crime, only bad judgement. Even if Bush lied, a potential plaintif would have to show motive or other gain. None of which exists. The war crimes angle just doesn't work and is a bad argument and talking point. It's emotionally charged because so many think the war is wrong. A better point would be Bush's lack of intelligence. Just watch him speak and you'll know what I mean. He sounds like an idiot! But it doesn't make hime a war criminal.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    Hear Hear MWF. I try to put myself in these guys shoes.....If I was in the same boat, IED's blowing left and right, watching your friends die for reasons you can't understand...I'd be shooting anything that moves to make sure me and mine got home alive. Right or wrong. I assume they are innocent until proven otherwise. If it is proven a murder was committed...charge Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld....all blame rests with them.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    But no other legitimate government or the UN is talking about war crimes for him.
    This is simply not true. link What is true is that the US has used bullying tactics to make prosecution all but impossible. Bolton, Bush's non-diplomatic diplomat, was given a recess appointment for just that reason.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    But no other legitimate government or the UN is talking about war crimes for him.
    The UN chief said it was/is an illegal war. Therefore, those that launched it are criminals and should be prosecuted. No way around that.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by chuckj on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    Those links are exactly what I'm talking about. Cases thrown out of court for lack of evidence, etc. Several talked about war crimes for acts during the war. That's legitimate, but we're talking about it being a crime to invade Iraq, not the conduct of the war. Most of those websites are knee-jerk reactions by those that hate Bush, and have added much emotion into the topic, ruining all their logic. Read and learn.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    Rumsfeld threatened to move NATO headquarters out of Brussels because he said U.S. diplomats no longer felt safe and welcome in the country. In addition, Rumsfeld also vowed to freeze American funding for the alliance's new €303.4 million ($352 million) headquarters if the law was not revoked.
    link Hard to have a International war crimes trial when the US refuses to be part of the International Criminal Court. Over 100 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute: But not the US. Yes time will tell. Illegal acts done by Bush also cannot be prosecuted because of the republican lock on Congress. Germany also acted within their legal consitiutional rights until they lost the war. We will see. Just because a tree falling in the forest cannot be heard does not mean that it did not fall. You are on the wrong side of the argument. Justifying Bush's criminal acts by saying that his intent was pure is a load of horespucky. You can be a witness for them at the warcrimes trial. Your friends will most likely desert you at that point, should it come. But hey, you don't seem to need emotional support anyway. BTW- torture is also legal in US law these days. Do you support that as well?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    It seems that even the armys confidence that the war is legal is not strong enough for them to be willing to press charges against an officer who refuses to deploy to Iraq and has said that "he would try to mount a case about the legality of the war under international law and American law." Thursday, June 22, 2006 War-protesting Fort Lewis officer doesn't deploy with his unit:
    Lt. Ehren Watada was not present when his battalion, part of the 3rd Brigade 2nd Infantry Division, gathered at 5:13 a.m. Instead, Watada remained within his headquarters building. Watada, who joined the Army in 2003, said he came believe the Iraq war was illegal and immoral, and he had a duty not to follow orders. No charges against Watada will be filed until the commander has had a chance to review all of the facts of the case and consult with military lawyers, according to a news release issued by the Army. Meanwhile, Watada has been ordered to remain on duty, with some limitations on his pass privileges, pending further instructions from his chain of command. He has been ordered not to leave Fort Lewis.


    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by Officious Pedant on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    chuck, I normally respond pretty scathingly to comments like this:
    Also, I read much in these comments about it being a crime to invade Iraq, or charging Bush with war crimes for invading, etc. Those of you who think this way should realize that starting a war or invading a country is not a crime by any international law, Geneva Conventions Agreements, or US law. "The Law of Land Warfare" clearly states how war is conducted, not whether you may or may not start a war. It's perfectly legal to start a war.
    It strikes me as a statement made through ignorance, or intellectual laziness. Given the tenor of your argument, though, I have opted to explain the error of your assertion. We begin with American law: Article IV of the Constitution states that: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Which means that, when we ratified the Charter on July, 28th, 1945, we became bound by it in accordance with our Constitution. As such, the following portions of Article 2 of the Charter are particularly relevant: All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The exceptions are as follows: Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Iraq was not a military threat to us, and had not invaded a neighbor. None of the Security Council resolutions authorized the US to invade Iraq and remove its government. The Security Council did not approve a resolution to militarily disarm Iraq. Indeed, the US and Britain would not have gotten a simple majority of the 15 member states to support it(with only four states in support), yet the US and its "Coalition of the Willing" went forward anyway. They broke the law on the perception that the war would be a cakewalk, and once weapons were found they could get a retroactive authorization for having invaded (a la Yugoslavia). As you say, chuck, read and learn.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    None of that shows a crime. Reference article 51 of the statute quoted. The exception is self defense. The president deemed that Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to us, and therefore took appropriate action. One could argue that their WMDs were not a threat, but that would have to be settled in court. Given Saddam's previous use of WMDs, that would be pretty hard to assert. The simple fact is, no one is officially charging Bush with crimes because there is no evidence (or not strong enough evidence) to do so. We know the entire world hates us, so if they could, they would. All of the opinions to bring Bush up on charges are based on incorrect presumptions, and based on hatred for him and other such emotions.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    The exception is self defense. The president deemed that Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to us, and therefore took appropriate action.
    yep, all those WMDs he found, they sure were a threat. And it wasn't self defense because they had no way to deliver them to the US. Nice try tho, keep drinking that koolaid.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    The exception is self defense. The president deemed that Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to us, and therefore took appropriate action.
    yep, all those WMDs he found, they sure were a threat. And it wasn't self defense because they had no way to deliver them to the US. Nice try tho, keep drinking that koolaid.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    One could argue that their WMDs were not a threat, but that would have to be settled in court. The day you figure out how to prove a negative will be your 15 minutes of fame, for you will have developed a new method of logical deduction, and thrown out all of the history of the development of logic. One could argue that their WMDs were a threat, which is what bushco did, but that would be and was an accusation with no evidence to back it up. Prove it.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#38)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    No way to deliver them? How about on the back of a truck, or in a shipping container, or a 747, or whatever. The possibilities are endless, as could be argued in court. And WMDs have been found there, plenty of them. Do a search. But the issue isn't finding them. Saddam was supposed to prove that he destroyed them, which he refused to do. So the world thought he had them. So here's a question. If Bush committed crimes, why hasn't he been charged? Don't give any grassy knoll conspiracy theories either.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    After you're finished proving the existence of your fictional wmd's, and the fictional delivery systems that could be used to attack America in your fictional plan to do so.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    One could argue that their WMDs were a threat, which is what bushco did, but that would be and was an accusation with no evidence to back it up. Prove it.
    When you charge someone with a crime, the accuser has to prove it, not the other way around.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#41)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    After you're finished proving the existence of your fictional wmd's, and the fictional delivery systems that could be used to attack America in your fictional plan to do so.
    If they're fictional, you have to have evidence of that and use it for an indictment, and then conviction of crimes. Why hasn't that been done?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    When you charge someone with a crime, the accuser has to prove it, not the other way around. Exactly. You, and bushco, have made claims that Iraq was a threat. Either prove it, or take your bat and ball and go home.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#43)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    That's not what we're talking about. It's whether Bush committed a crime by invading Iraq. If it was a crime, then we, or the UN, or the world court must prove that it was a crime. Prove that it was not self defense. Prove that Iraq was not a threat. None of these things have been done. For the sake of crimes, no one has to prove that Iraq was a threat. So my question stands. If Bush is a criminal, why has he not been charged?

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    chuck: For the sake of crimes, no one has to prove that Iraq was a threat. So you admit it was a crime, and you support invading countries for which there is no evidence that they are any threat, but just because you think they might be. By that criteria you need to attack every country on earth. You define yourself. And you are no longer worth engaging.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#45)
    by chuckj on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    I admit that it's my opinion that Bush wasn't truthful when we invaded Iraq. I admit that I think it may have been a crime, maybe. But who cares what I admit. Bush has to admit it. My argument was not to say that it was or was not a crime. My argument is that we shouldn't say "Bush is a criminal". There is no proof of it, and we sound like idiots when we say it. We look nutty to normal people. Bush has plenty of other faults that are in front of us. The war may have been a mistake, blame him for that. Blame him for making bad decisions. Blame him for poor intelligence. But the war crime angle is just bad reasoning, doesn't work and sounds wacky. It's all full of emotion, and therefore muddied up.

    Re: 7 Marines Charged With Murder in Iraq (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    And WMDs have been found there, plenty of them.
    no, that's not true. there have been very small amounts of outdated, relatively harmless chemical shells. The WH and the DoD completely disparaged this. Please quit repeating this meme, it only serves to prove how ignorant you are wiling to believe.