Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 31, 2007 8:44 AM:Stop the madness! When in history have soldiers been prosecuted by their own country for alleged crimes committed on the battlefield? Who is going to prosecute the insurgents for beheading countless victims? We have become so politically correct in this country that we are not capable of following through with a commitment such as we've exposed ourselves to in Iraq. Right or wrong, we are there now and we need to end it accordingly. Not with trials that negate our ability to conduct foreign policy.

Realistic wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:47 AM:War is war and there is no singling out just the men. Note the definition...War: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. If someone has to go to war then all's fair. The other side wouldn't come to the U.S. and leave the women and children alone. I guarantee it!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 31, 2007 10:18 AM:Gee! Did the Prosecutor really say that? He accused a United States Marine who had 'orders' to 'clear houses' in a 'firefight' in Iraq during a 'War'? Since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said all of our troops have the absolute right to defend themselves, then shouldn't ANY one who interferes with that right be prosecuted for PREmeditated Murder. SO! When do we call in NCIS to investigate Congress, Themselves, and the Prosecution for their PCBS charges against Sgt. Ray Girouard, Pfc. Corey Clagett, The Pendleton 8, Haditha Marines, Afghanistan Marines, Fallujah Marines, and God knows whose lives they have in mind to ruin next? (These are My questions; Not those of NC Times).

Neufusion wrote on Aug 31, 2007 12:08 PM:Realistic, war is declared. When did we declare war against Iraq? We didnt. We have an authorized use of force in an occupied territory, not a declared war. This is not a war against a country. This is an open-ended forced occupation of an entire region with no clearly defined goals. Stop the madness! We are losing Americans and killing innocent people. What is this accomplishing?

ALPINE MAVEN wrote on Aug 31, 2007 1:49 PM:to Neufusion. You are obviously opposed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fine. So are a probable majority of the American people. But let's not let that sway our judgment in dealing with those accused of murder and other crimes. Methinks your assertions about whether or not we are at war are non sequiturs. The courts have recognized our actions in Korea, Viet Nam and now the Middle East as wars. Just because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war does not obviate an action being defined as a war legally. Especially when funded by Congress and executed by the President. In the case of Sgt Wuterich he is faced with apparent testimony from compromised witnesses whose statements lack crediblity and veracity since they are based on promises of immunity or reduced charges. The extenuations of combat are clearly present in his case. Any plain English reading of just the above article will show that.

Moe wrote on Aug 31, 2007 2:02 PM:I totally agree with Neufusion there is no war to speak of since it was never declared. The Russians did this in the 80's and there was a huge outcry from the US, what about now...nothing!

A Female Marine Judge Teaching wrote on Aug 31, 2007 2:28 PM:"law of war and rules of engagement" to a Combat Unit?! What a poor choice for a teacher. I'd LOVE to see Her Combat Record! lol!

ALPINE MAVEN wrote on Aug 31, 2007 2:40 PM:At the risk of being redundant, I say again: whether or not we are in a "declared" war is irrelevant to the subject of the article about Sgt. Wuterich. It DOESN'T MATTER and is a total non sequitur. It's as though somebody is arguing that Sgt. Wuterich acted outside the bounds of a "declared" war and therefore must be convicted of something. TOTALLY IDIOTIC. In any case, we are at war just as surely as we were at war during World War II. Sgt Wuterich was in combat in Iraq when yet another roadside bomb planted by an invisible insurgent exploded. He was ordered to "clear" the area and clear it he did. Should we prosecute those who piloted bombers over Germany during World War II and fire bombed Dresden and many other locations resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians, men, women and children? War is war, combat is combat, bad things happen, war is messy and as General Sherman said, "War is hell."

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 31, 2007 3:22 PM:Speaking of the female Marine Judge and her testimony...Is she testifying For or Against the Marines? If Aagainst, she makes no sense. They "were" directly under attack, and the attackers were hostile. No one has yet to prove how many innocents there may have been. Even the little girl, Safa Younis, said she knew the bomb was going to go off; Then she is Not innocent. She could have, at the least, told any so-called innocents to stay down. These people knew of the attack and that there would be fighting. Clearing houses is taught, sanctioned, legal, and was "ordered" on that day. Was this so-called judge not aware that the Marines have the "absolute right" to defend themselves? Did she teach how to Specifically identify the enemy while trying not to be blown to bits? Send her in first next time. Let her identify the innocent from the enemy. Let her get some real up front and personal experience and then see what she teaches any Marine before they deploy to Iraq or anywhere else.

Neufusion wrote on Aug 31, 2007 5:23 PM:I forgot that the Gulf war wasn't actually over. We left it open to go back in if Saddam didn't live up to the agreement he made with us. Basically, I suppose we Realistically are at war.

So sad wrote on Aug 31, 2007 10:49 PM:that our solders are being asked to ack like police in these matters, which they are not trained for, not do they have the time to act like it. Blame the politicians

Citizen wrote on Sep 2, 2007 10:39 AM:Someone asked since when does a country prosecute its own people for war crimes. We have and so has every other civilzied nation since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This is a basic precondition under the historical law of war and the Geneva Conventions for our troops to be accorded POW status upon capture and for us to avoid international war crimes prosecutions. Basically a nation must prosecute its own criminals or its soldiers and leaders risk internatinoal prosecution and its soldiers race losing POW status. Now, it's obvious, the combatants in Iraq do not respect our captured soldiers. But this is irrelevant because citizens in an occupied nation have a right not to be killed when innocent and noncombatants. This sounds like a nutty sgt. with a chip on his soldier and no regard for Iraqi civlians. People like this belong in prison not in uniform.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 2, 2007 8:51 PM:To Citizen: Baloney!!! The United States has agreements with nations that typically give host nations primary legal jurisdiction over local laws, WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR CRIMES THAT OCCUR ON A U.S. COMPOUND OR INVOLVE ACTIONS IN THE LINE OF DUTY. You say it's irrelevant that the combatants in Iraq don't respect our captured soldiers because they have a right not to be killed WHEN innocent and noncombatants? Well excuse me, but our soldiers can't tell the difference; therefore our soldiers have the Right Not to be killed by NONinnocent Combatants!!! Why don't you go on a mission and stand up for your countrymen, which appears to be far removed from this country? People like you belong where their allegiance lies.

General Disorder and Dismay wrote on Sep 3, 2007 10:03 AM: If our troops can't even tell who to shoot, they should be pulled out of there today! It's one thing to be an army of occupation, its another to be an indiscriminate band of killers turned loose on the people. But I don't accept that they are that incompetent and clueless.

Citizen wrote on Sep 3, 2007 12:19 PM:My allegiance is to our country's Constitution and its laws; I don't worship the military and think it needs to be kept on a short leash or we'll end up like some militaristic bananna republic such as Venezuela. Our country's forces only benefit from a status of forces agreement that allows us to use the UCMJ when we're in a host nation at its request and we've signed such an agreement. This is technically the case in Iraq since we handed over sovereignty, we've been there at their request/permission. Theoretically without a SOFA they could try American soldiers and Marines for war crimes. Every SOFA is different. As for the noncombatants being hard to distinguish, that's certainly true, but when someone is clearly a noncombatant such as a young child then they cannot be lawfully killed regardless of whether someone else may be killed mistakenly (and lawfully). The actions of our men must be reasonable under the circumstances. Surely you don't think our forces can go into an Iraqi hospital and just kill everyone, including the old and infirm, and say, "hey, we can't tell the difference." They have a duty to tell the difference, and if they're too dumb or lazy or indifferent to human life to do so they should get another job. They're embarassing our country and they're public servants who should do what they're told and quit thinking they can break the law.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 3, 2007 3:59 PM:To Citizen: That's comical. The routine about a "status of forces agreement that allows us to use the UCMJ when we're in a host nation at its request and we've signed such an agreement"? NO one "ALLOWS" us to use the UCMJ. We did not go into Iraq at their request. Sovereignty? Ha! Not yet! Fledging and screwed up and trying, but not there yet. Host nation? You talk like we were invited to tea. Puhleeze! I guess you missed the part about WAR where some innocents do get in the way and are killed. Have you at any time during this past year ever wondered if any of the so-called innocents were killed by insurgents? Of course not! That would upset your negative portrayal of our troops. Would you rather OUR Marines be killed? THAT is the alternative in a firefight where one doesn't know friendly from enemy. Your reference to our military as dumb or lazy only reveals one with a grudge against the military for one reason or another. Any embarrassment to our country comes from CITIZENS who don't support their own countrymen. Our troops are NOT public servants. YOU may be employed as a public "servant". Those in the military ENLIST to protect this country. They take an oath. They are NOT "hired" as public servants. Your attempt at demeaning their value demeans your own. Breaking the law? Apparently you have yet to comprehend that the troops have the RIGHT to defend themselves. But hey! You know that already. You Just Don't Care!

Shock but no awe wrote on Sep 3, 2007 4:00 PM:George Bush goes to Anbar Province and makes nice with the tribal chiefs who just a few months ago were killing American troops. It maybe necessary, I don't know--but if he can shake hands and forgive the killers of our sons and daughters, and give them respectful nick names--why... is he still saying we are fighting there so they don't follow us here. He is making nice with whats left of the Sadaam loyalists and original insurgency. The hands he is shaking are stained with American blood--not purple ink.

Joe wrote on Sep 3, 2007 4:02 PM:Citizen, the plain truth is so powerful when you read it. Thanks!

Citizen wrote on Sep 4, 2007 7:05 AM:Since we transferred sovereignty to the Iraqis in 30 June 2004, we can no longer be said to be an army of occupation. This is an important distinction. Obvious our forces are fighting and there is a war on and all that, but there is also an Iraqi government in place, it has courts and laws and citizens (remember the purple fingers you all said made this war worth it), etc. We've moved from occupier to ally of the Iraqi government; if you don't like that, blame Bush and the CPA for transferring sovereignty. This technical status as an ally assisting the local government was also our case in Vietnam, where we were there by invitation and under our SEATO obligations. This is very easy to look up AW4, it's on Wikipedia for cripes sake, but I realize you may be functionally illiterate and are clearly incurious. I don't see why fireman and cops are public servants but not the military. The people are sovereign, as are their laws. Everyone else from President down to PFC is subordinate to the people and their laws. Did I miss a class in civics that said the military is above the law? Once again and this should be obvious by now: killing innocent people does not qualify in any sense of the term as "defending yourself" and, if it does, then the German genocide against Jews and Russians and Poles was an audacious act of self-defense.

Citizen wrote on Sep 4, 2007 7:14 AM:For the record, and as usual, AW4 has mischaracterized and selectively ignored the points in my previous post. Specifically, she (1) does not acknowledge the danger of militarism in any way, in particular the way it has been a bane to much of the rest of the world, (2) does not acknowledge the verifiable fact that we've transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi regime for better or worse and that this transfer changes the legal status of our troops from lawful occupier to lawful invitee of the Iraqi regime subject to their jurisdiction but for the exceptions placed in a SOFA, (3) she ignores my point that the "inability to distinguish friend from foe" argument is specious, has no bearing when someone is clearly not a combatant, and that, if meant seriously would logically allow undeniable atrocities and genocide, (4) she ignores that the military like every other part of our government should be subordinate to the people's laws, including as they relate to rules of engagement, and (5) she ignores that the lazy and stupid point did not refer to the military in general but to the mentally obtuse and vengeful troops involved in war crimes at Haditha. I don't honestly think I've seen a greater example of emotivism and illogic than AW4. (Now I must take cover because this undeniable point will be called a "personal attack" and, as usual, the main substantive points of my post will be ignored. But you the readers can see her for what she is: a blatant propagandist worthy of the USSR's Pravda.)

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 4, 2007 4:26 PM:Perhaps if CITIZEN would clarify his remarks concerning 'the military in general' there might not be any misunderstanding; otherwise, the remark stands on its own merit as worded. I'm glad to see that CITIZEN chooses to "take cover". Anyone who can NOT prove their point, as evidenced by CITIZEN, usually resorts to tactics that are reprehensible and pathetic. Of course I've been personally attacked...for months. I live with it. Big Whoop! One thing I have never done is go off the deep end and made such a ridiculous claim as the one made by CITIZEN at the end of his comments. A "blatant propagandanist worthy of the USSR's Pravda"? How is it that you know so much about that? Methinks "Thou Doth Protest (and Stick Thy Foot in Thy Mouth)Too Much". Deep End, Dude!!!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 4, 2007 5:34 PM:To CITIZEN: I just couldn't seem to get past your calling me "incurious"? A falsehood. Once I got past the personal insults I researched concerning your remarks about sovereignty. If you'd make up your mind as to whether or not we are occupiers or allies. It changes according to the point you're trying to make convincing. Anyway; We turned over sovereignty to the Iraqi so-called government. BUT! They are NOT sovereign! Ask them and they will tell you they don't want the occupiers to leave. Ask Maliki, their 'sovereign'? leader. They know there won't be 'any' type of government if we leave. There will be a lot more bodies though. As for what you refer to as sovereignty...It means that the citizens have the capacity to control their own affairs. See that happening? It is the "right to exercise supreme power, especially over a body politic". Sovereignty of a nation is "the right of political entities to be free from outside interference'. Is that not what you constantly complain about? The Wall Street Journal (May 13, 2004) said that Bremer and other officials wre building institutions that would give the U.S. powerful levers for "influencing nearly every important decision in Interim Government will make." It also said that, "the new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval." UN envoy for Kofi Anon, Lakhtar Brahimi, said of Paul Bremer: "Mr. Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country." Have you seen anything change since then? Ergo; my comments that Iraq is NOT sovereign. Clarified just for you who calls me incurious. You asked for it, you got it. Never accuse me of ignoring anything. DISAGREEING is not ignoring. As for whether or not you missed a class in civics. I don't know about civics but you definitely missed a heck of a lot of lessons on military rights, teachings, ROE's, etc. Just because you don't seem to want a Marine to have the RIGHT to defend himself does not negate the fact that he has that right. Get over your judgmental, holier than thou, self. Now, you may go back to your usual personal attacks toward me. ...I'm used to them.

Citizen wrote on Sep 5, 2007 6:41 AM:The defendants have all had military appointed lawyers and civilian lawyers. They've been able to defend themselves just fine, judging by the Hamdania results. Also, you ignored most of my points and decided to have (yet another) pity party for personal attacks. As a practical matter, you're correct, Iraq is substantially subordinate to the US. But as a legal matter we and the CPA transferred sovereignty to them. Bush made a big deal about it, as you remember. It, like elections and like the capture and execution of Hussein was supposed to take the "wind out of the sails" of the insurgency. Yet the insurgency roils along. We're technically now in Iraq at the request of and with the permission of the elected Iraqi government. While we have certain duties under international law as combatants--regardless of our status as occupier or invitee--as a legal matter we are no longer an army of occupation with all the duties of an army of occupation. We still however have a duty not to kill noncombatants purposefully or intentionally. This is true for every nation, including in its dealings with its own people. Just ask Serbia about that one. Oh, AW4, you're so emotional and unhinged. Learn to write and think more clearly and keep your emotions in check and you'll be more persuasive. As it stands, it seems you have Histrionic Personality Disorder.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 5, 2007 1:38 PM:Histrionic Personality Disorder? It would take an emotionally unhinged Paranoid Delusional Personality to dream that one up. How sad!