AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 17, 2006 1:01 PM:The government is coordinating a trip to Iraq for defense counsel. I just hope the phrase,"Better Late Than Never", holds true. The prosecution has had its way from the start; like a bad football game where the referees keep calling penalties on one team; penalties that no one else saw. In a case like this it's a slap in the face of the defense to not have allowed them access much sooner. The Manual for Courts-Martial does allow for it, and more, but the military chose to not apply the rules. Go Figure!!

Danielle wrote on Oct 17, 2006 4:20 PM:Funny how the old USMC didn't have money for the defense to visit the scene, but they do have a cool million laying around to make sure the brass get on camera. We all know this is political, sad, sad, sad day for Americans.

Harry wrote on Oct 17, 2006 5:30 PM:I think I am beginning to get it. You hate the United States Marine Corps and think they are in the business of setting up heroic, noble, self sacrificing young men; you think that the United States Marine Corps is dishonest, dishonorable and not to be trusted and not worthy of an ounce of respect. You hate the officers and "the brass" who you think are only interested in their personal vanity and getting themselves on TV. I wonder if you hate all the other branches of the military as much as you hate the Marines. I wonder when in the process of promotion, a young heroic good recruit turns bad. I am admittedly "anti-military" and am particularly suspect of the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief, but I don't think I hate and disrespect the command to the degree that you do. I am relatively certain that we abuse and torture the men we are holding at “Gitmo” and in our secret torture prisons around the world, but I would honestly never suspected the pervasiveness or the degree of dishonor that you are on to.

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 17, 2006 6:28 PM:Harry, I can tell you for certain that the prosecution played fast and loose with UCMJ Article 46 rules on discovery submittals. Article 46 specifically forbids "gamesmanship" in providing discovery. It's interesting that the SCOTUS ruled on giving all evidence to the Gitmo detainees in the Hamdan Case but did not do so for the Eight. Moreover, the Convening Authority did refuse to allow the defense to travel to Hamdania and did set up a nice new media center for $760K. I don't know that the above means all brass or all officers are rotten. Certainly the orders for how to handle this case came from the SecDef's office.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 17, 2006 6:48 PM:Oh My!! I think psychologists call it "transference". The ridiculous post of Oct.17 at 5:30PM. To 'admit' to being "anti-military" and "suspect of the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief" and try to throw that back on to one who in no way has represented that attitude, is what shrinks call "transference". I, too, wonder if the '5:30PM commentor' hates all the other branches of the military. My goodness. Where do all the hateful words come from? To just spend one's time finding ways to "insult" another without any provocation is...sad, sad, sad; in the words of someone for whom I have respect.

Harry wrote on Oct 17, 2006 9:14 PM:John1, I am concerned about the rules of discovery and due process. I have only layman's knowledge of civil courts and none whatsoever of military courts. I am hopeful that with legal representation, that will be all taken care of. Could it be that discovery was delayed because of timing--charges hadn't been brought forward when the issue was originally raised?

Mental Health Professional wrote on Oct 17, 2006 9:47 PM:Arm chair psychology is a very inexact hobby and diagnosis by Google is even less exact! "Transference" is not "throwing [ideas] back onto someone else. It is a specific clinical term with a precise meaning. It describes the reassignment of feelings and emotions from one person (often in the past) to another person(often in the present). For instance if a patient had a tyranical father, they might feel uncomfortable and fearful of a male therapist or boss or other authority figure. Transference is usually an unconscious process and most always describes emotions rather than ideas.

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 17, 2006 10:51 PM:Harry, Certainly part of the problem was the delay in proferring charges; one of the central reasons I felt I had to stand up publicly was that my son and the others were held in solitary (I don't care else what the Marines want to call it) without being charged. This went on for more than one month (May 11 to June 21). The legal teams also believe the organization of the investigation was very poor, which will be reflected in the evidence presented. Still there is a suspicion by the defense counsels of gamesmanship; for instance, John's legal team received 3 Fedex packages of discovery only 2 working days before the Article 32 hearing. That's outrageous.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 17, 2006 11:33 PM:To Mental Health Professional: I don't think so!!! There's no way. Politician I can believe. For your information... transference: "the process in and by which an individual's feelings, thoughts, and wishes shift from one person to another; especially, this process in psychoanalysis with the analyst made the object of the shift." It has nothing to do with 'often in the past' or 'often in the present'. As for emotion as opposed to ideas...what do you think hate is? An "emotion"!!. ...

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 17, 2006 11:40 PM: Mental Health Professional: I forgot something...Google didn't "diagnose" anything. Google is over a billion dollar a year business that gives one access to a smorgasbord of knowledge. With that knowledge one can draw his or her own conclusions. There is no need of a "diagnosis" from Google.

Mental Health Professional wrote on Oct 18, 2006 10:52 AM:AW____, you are wrong. The following definition of transference might help you, but I doubt you will be receptive. "Transference: The unconscious assignment to others of feelings and attitudes that were originally associated with important figures (parents, siblings, etc.) in one's early life. The transference relationship follows the pattern of its prototype. The psychiatrist utilizes this phenomenon as a therapeutic tool to help the patient understand emotional problems and their origins. In the patient-physician relationship, the transference may be negative (hostile) or positive (affectionate).” This is exactly what I told you in the post of 9:47PM, which you rejected. I stand by the definition I gave you. The issue of “transference” wasn’t relevant when you originally brought it up and this tangent continues to lack relevance to the post which you were attempting to rebut.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:01 PM:OK. As I commented once before; the school that the Mental Health Professional attended needs to give them a refund. I don't accept one person's "opinion" on a technical matter. This has been made technical; so here are some definitions of psychiatric 'transference': 1. "In psychoanalysis, the process by which emotions associated with one person, such as a parent, are unconsciously shift to another, especially to the analyst." FYI; It says 'such as' a parent. 2."(psychoanalysis) the process whereby emotions are passed on or displaced from one person to another; during psychonalysis the displacement of feelings toward others (usually the parents) is onto the analyst." FYI; it says 'during psychoanalysis' and 'usually'the parents. The parents NOT written in stone! 3."Transference was first described by Freud, who acknowledged its importance for psychoanalysis for better understanding of the patient's feelings. Transference is often manifested as an erotic attraction towards a therapist. It's also common for people to transfer feelings from their parents to their partners." (I stopped there because it got into stuff that would be deleted). FYI:The firstdefinition I gave was from the dictionary. I used it "before" I knew this was going to be a technical problem. So, in the final analysis; bottom line is that my reference to the word "transference", for the situation in which it was used, is a perfectly legitimate one. I think that I have the right as an American citizen to compare something using a word of my choice, as long as it is an appropriate word. Don't forget to get a refund.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 18, 2006 2:08 PM:To Mental Health person: I know what; Let's ask Dr. Phil.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 18, 2006 6:22 PM:To mental Health...I've been Googling some more. Guess what? Now I really don't accept the title of "Professional". If it were true, a "professional" would have caught this. The proper word for my previous comparison may have been "projection": 1.According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one 'projects' one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings--basically parts of oneself--onto someone else. 2.(Freud:A Life for Our Time,pg.281) "the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable--too xxxx--by attributing them to another." I can't believe a "professional" wouldn't know this. This has been a good learning experience. Had one not been so "UNprofessionally" emotional, one might have Googled first. Don't forget to get that refund.

Morallyright1 wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:32 AM:The most important factor in this entire scenario outside of the totally fictitious charges, is the fact that the military and the Marines specifically are above the laws of this land. They created their own justice system themselves, for themselves, for a reason. They feel that whatever the business at hand, they want to deal with it in whatever fashion they deem fit at the time. Furthermore, think back to Viet Nam or any other armed conflict....anyone charged militarily was never privy to any evidence until it was almost too late. Remember, they (here it is the Marines) can do whatever they want as they want. Too bad that isn't even in fine print on the enlistment contract for someone to be made aware of before enlisting. We continually loose site of the fact that they are not going to be judged, tried or sentenced by anything that we are familiar with, unless you are enlisted. And just like any other body that holds ones life in it's hands, each of these individuals can be pursuaded, influenced and even 'bought' with promises of promotions etc.....It is totally disgusting to both sides of this issue here the way these men have been treated...but as far as the Marines are concerned....they are treating the enemy, not one of their own. And that is where the true sadness and futility lies. And such games as the 'musical marines' and the ever present prosecution in the brig and elsewhere still hammering away at these men day and night, is only more evidence of how there is no 'due process of law' here....only the incredibly good shield called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for it has all but been inpenetrable. And, if these men ever do get their day in court, how can you ever expect a jury made up of career Marines to be unbiased from the git-go? By sheer professionalism? Come, come....the same would be the military legal counsels. They also took an oath to the Marines first and foremost, then the oath as a legal counsel second. Oh, yeah, that is truly fair and unbiased isn't it?

MHP wrote on Oct 19, 2006 7:55 AM:AW! I feel absolutely no responsibility to educate you! However I wish someone could teach you "manners". Your comments are consistently vile and destructive. If you got the pseudo-psychiatry from some time in therapy, you might want to call for another appointment. You are definately not impressing the real world with your excess verbage and loose associations.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 19, 2006 2:13 PM:To Morallyright1: WOW and Ditto! Some can't seem to stand the fact that I 'Google' to learn about something that's important to me, but I could care less. I have learned more about the military, especially the Marines, in the last few months than I ever expected. I know exactly where you're coming from and agree 100% with every word. They seem to have good civilian attorneys who believe in them and will go all out for them. I'm one of many who will stand by them as long as it takes.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 19, 2006 3:02 PM:To MHP: I knew it! Not really a Professional. A 'true' professional would maintain a calm exterior so as to soothe the person for whom they may have so much antagonism; thereby making their point 'seem' more plausible as to affect the point of view taken by the person with whom the Professional apparently feels so much antagonism, disdain, contempt, and Scornful superiority. I'm so grateful that MHP feels "no responsibility to educate" me. I'd have to ask for a refund. I never professed to be an authority on psychology, or to be any more intelligent than anyone else. All I have claimed is my belief in these Marines and that I GOOGLE to learn everything I can to better understand all that is going on. If I get 'wordy' it is to prove a point to one who only knows how to "attack". Life itself gives one perspective and common sense. I'm not trying to impress any one with my "excess verbage"??. Not my problem if, as a professional, MHP is unable to express his or her self using 'facts' obtained through a little research. Not my problem if one who claims to be professional can only express themselves in an UNprofessional manner. I'll bet a dollar to a cop's donut that MHP will not even attempt to back up the statement that my "comments are consistently vile and destructive". That's a mouthful. Please feel free to back that up. While we're at it; I never got a professional answer about using the word "projection" as opposed to 'transference'. A professional should be able to reply. Don't Forget That Refund!

Support 4 the Police: wrote on Oct 19, 2006 4:32 PM:"I'll bet a dollar to a cop's donut..." Why is it necessary to insult the police officers on top of everyone else? I bet awforcrying would be the first to expect those she is so free to insult to put their life on the line and come to her aid, if needed, AND I BET THEY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believe me, police do more than eat donuts. We had one fine young man savagedly shot down and killed here and he wasn't eating donuts!!!!!

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:18 PM:To Support 4 the Police: I stand ashamedly corrected. I've heard that term used so much for years; in movies, on TV, and in the media, that it had just became second nature to use it. I never realized that it cuts so deep, and for that I apologize; not only to 'Support 4 the Police', but to all of law enforcement everywhere who may have been insulted that deeply by it. Having that pain brought to my attention, I will never use it again. I won't stop standing up for these Marines; which leads to insulting remarks sometimes (especially when I have been accused of being 'vile' and have had a vulgarity verbalized to me), but I make you a solemn promise to refrain from using that term again. I'm sorry for the loss of your fallen police officer. I agree that I would expect one of your own to come to my aid if I were in trouble, and I have no doubt that each and every one of them would. Again; I'm really deeply sorry for causing you pain, especially at a time when it is magnified by your loss.

John1 wrote on Oct 20, 2006 5:14 AM:I am afraid Morallyright1 is correct.. There is no justice in the "military justice system" and despite what my son's lawyers steadfastly maintain, it is not a fair and unbiased system. When the UCMJ was adopted, many service members objected; now I know why.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Oct 20, 2006 2:07 PM:(I got sick of using caps so I changed my AW4)...Hey, Morallyright: In the 'Hamdania Defense Attorny Raises Concerns...article, you posted to me (Oct.19 at 5:43AM). I replied but haven't heard anything. The only reason I bring it up is that I'm confused. You said to me...."if you like the laws of the military it is too bad you couldn't just switch places of one of these men..." I've been trying to figure what I said to give the impression that I was other than in full supportof the Marines. If anything, I've been dumped on by several who don't care for the fact that I researched military law and pointed out that it was 'supposed' to protect those like the P8, but in actuality it covers the upper echelon of the military. Please let me know what gave any other impression than my belief the Marines are getting screwed. There has to be a misunderstanding. Thanks, AW4.

Harry wrote on Oct 21, 2006 3:28 PM:There are some people who have used these comment sections about the Hamdania cases, as their personal soapbox. One in particular has dominated the space with post after post, which seem motivated by an insatiable desire to see her words in print, to gain favor by proving that she is more of a supporter than anyone else, and to belittle, insult, misinterpret and make false arguments, against anyone who disagrees with her. I for one have experienced her machinations and adolescent tirades and her coarse inuendo and crude insults. Only once did I succumb and return in kind, and I quickly apologized for that. I know better. I was taught by my mother to “take it from whence it comes” and that if “you lie with dogs you get up with fleas”. This should not have been a stage for ego to be paraded; the community forum was never intended to showcase individual posters but to provide a medium for the free exchange of ideas. It is my sincere hope that the public furor will be drawing to a close as the cases are resolved and that the attention can be returned to the larger picture. I am aware that the personal and familial agony will continue for all those directly involved. I hope that they find peace.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Oct 21, 2006 7:49 PM:RE: the Oct.21, 3:28PM post which says, "There are some people who have used these comment sections about the Hamdania cases, as their personal soapbox..." Really? Good to know that I'm the 'only' one supposedly doing this. Methinks thou doth protest too much,3:28PM. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The problem you're really having is that you don't know how to deal with someone who seems to get to you. Re-read your 3:28PM comments You say, the "One in particular has dominated the space with post after post..."etc.....You might want to let me know how many posts one is supposed to make. As for the 'person of whom you speak' trying "to gain favor by proving that she is more of a supporter than anyone else." How juvenile. If you understood the person of whom you speak you might realize that her whole heart is in support of these guys; just as it is in the hearts of most who comment. Go back and read all of the posts. There are so many people who express themselves far better than I. It's just that (and you can take this and run with it because I'm opening the door)I am a 'wordy' person. I know it. I admit it. Once I get started I seem to get on a roll. Don't you think I'd be great at filibustering Congress? Go back and re-read all of the insults you've made to 'this' person of whom you speak and then ask yourself...Gee, wonder why she gives it back to me!!! The only reason for apologizing for your vulgarity to me awhile back was to 'appear' remorseful. Please wait while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing...Your line: "Only once did I succumb and return in kind." Wait...laughs again...OK. I'm back. Sorry to hear about the fleas. You must be more careful. If, as you say, the community forum is for providing a medium for the "free" exchange of ideas, why does that seem to exclude one who is in disagreement with your opinion? Last, but not least, the whole "peace" bit is getting old and unbelievable.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Oct 21, 2006 8:56 PM:To the 3:28PM post....FYI: Since I was being accused of "dominating the space with post after post", I got curious and went back to August. On the 15th. you had 2 posts; one of 8 lines of comments. One with 16 lines of comments. On August 16th. you had 4 posts. One of 29 lines of comments, two with 9 lines, and one of 7 lines. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. One might pratice what one preaches and try not to "dominate the space".