US Marines murdered British journalist (Iraq)

rebornFixer · October 2006

It is still not clear to me, even after reading all that, that the men in the tank were specifically trying to kill a journalist.

darkcrow · October 2006

Jammin909 wrote:

OK. Good luck getting your "justice".

He voluntarily put himself in harms way.

what is your problem? why can his family not have the right to see these soliders in court? guilty or innocent they shuold be brought to court so justice is served. in court the facts will come out and if it is discovered the soldiers are innocent then justice is served. if it is discovered that the soliders knew he was a journalist but still fired on his car then they should be thrown in prision for live. either way justice is served

darkcrow · October 2006

reborncareerist wrote:

It is still not clear to me, even after reading all that, that the men in the tank were specifically trying to kill a journalist.

that is why we need to see these soliders in court... was an order given to fire? was it panic by a young inexperienced soldier? did the iraqis fire first? we need to know.

rebornFixer · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

that is why we need to see these soliders in court... was an order given to fire? was it panic by a young inexperienced soldier? did the iraqis fire first? we need to know.

Agreed.

truroute · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

this isnt cutting and pasting of anti-american media... this is about justice. if the soldiers didnt mean it then let them come to the uk to face the courts, to give their accounts and then to be cross-examined by the prosecution. if the soldiers are innocent what the american govt scared about? send them here and let justice be served.

First of all, is there any pure justice on the battlefield?

Its highly doubtful that if the soldiers were to face a court w/ jury in the UK, that the jury would not have their mind made up before the hearing.

darkcrow · October 2006

truroute wrote:

First of all, is there any pure justice on the battlefield?

Its highly doubtful that if the soldiers were to face a court w/ jury in the UK, that the jury would not have their mind made up before the hearing.

that could be said for any and all jury trials across the world. stop trying to make excuses.... the family deserve justice to be served. trial by jury is the best system we have right now and so it must be used.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

that could be said for any and all jury trials across the world. stop trying to make excuses.... the family deserve justice to be served. trial by jury is the best system we have right now and so it must be used.

I'll agree with that. Excuses can constantly be made. Get past them and get to the facts.

truroute · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

that could be said for any and all jury trials across the world. stop trying to make excuses.... the family deserve justice to be served. trial by jury is the best system we have right now and so it must be used.

I understand what you're saying and I am not making excuses bud. IMO, your idea is great, but in a world like ours, I seriously dont think justice would be served. Just like the states, public opinion would overwhelm the outcome.

And also, the guy did go out onto a live battlefield in an active warzone notorious for extreme violence, where the enemy is well known to hide where civilians would be.

Also, thx for the rest of the articles.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

truroute wrote:

I understand what you're saying and I am not making excuses bud. IMO, your idea is great, but in a world like ours, I seriously dont think justice would be served. Just like the states, public opinion would overwhelm the outcome.

And also, the guy did go out onto a live battlefield in an active warzone notorious for extreme violence, where the enemy is well known to hide where civilians would be.

Also, thx for the rest of the articles.

I agree with this too. They would probably never be convicted if they were guilty.

darkcrow · October 2006

truroute wrote:

I understand what you're saying and I am not making excuses bud. IMO, your idea is great, but in a world like ours, I seriously dont think justice would be served. Just like the states, public opinion would overwhelm the outcome.

And also, the guy did go out onto a live battlefield in an active warzone notorious for extreme violence, where the enemy is well known to hide where civilians would be.

Also, thx for the rest of the articles.

there are safeguards. if the evidence is clear that the soldiers did nothing wrong but the jury still say they are guilty, the judge can call a mistrial or a retrial etc etc....

also about hiding where civilains would be.... i think you are confusing the iraqi army with hezbullah, hamas and other terrorists.

rebornFixer · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

also about hiding where civilains would be.... i think you are confusing the iraqi army with hezbullah, hamas and other terrorists.

Technically, the Iraqi army fights on the American side ... Kind of. The people I was referring to when I made a similar remark were the "foreign fighters" (many Al Qaida members) and those Iraqi insurgents who are involved in sectarian killings and other violence.

Truthmonger · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

that could be said for any and all jury trials across the world. stop trying to make excuses.... the family deserve justice to be served. trial by jury is the best system we have right now and so it must be used.

Yes, stop trying to make excuses. I love it when Americans are confronted about stuff that their gov't or military does. Suddenly, there is no black and white, no laws to be honoured - only endless latitude given to american soldiers, and ambiguous philosophical musings about war, death and integrity. The benefit of the doubt goes on ad nauseum for Yanks.

Ever notice how the standards change though, if its someone else ? If its a foreigner, especially a Muslim, there is no benefit of the doubt - just summary charges and allegations. Don't think so ? Just ask the German national El Masri, who was picked up on "a hunch" by american forces to be tortured. He was totally innocent. Or Canada's Maher Arar. Or ask the hundreds of prisoners in Gitmo, about 97% of which have yet to charged of anything (4 years and counting for some of them). I read somewhere that only 6 or 7 have been charged with anything.

Its a joke.

darkcrow · October 2006

reborncareerist wrote:

Technically, the Iraqi army fights on the American side ... Kind of. The people I was referring to when I made a similar remark were the "foreign fighters" (many Al Qaida members) and those Iraqi insurgents who are involved in sectarian killings and other violence.

oh k... when the journalist was killed it was during a firefight between iraqi troops(sadams army) and american troops within the early stages of the invasion

rebornFixer · October 2006

darkcrow wrote:

oh k... when the journalist was killed it was during a firefight between iraqi troops(sadams army) and american troops within the early stages of the invasion

My bad ... Got the timeline mixed up.

truroute · October 2006

reborncareerist wrote:

My bad ... Got the timeline mixed up.

same here.

truroute · October 2006

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I agree with this too. They would probably never be convicted if they were guilty.

Are you going to add anything to this conversation?

rebornFixer · October 2006

truroute wrote:

same here.

Although in all honesty, I'd find the notion of these guys firing at civilians on purpose a lot more plausible now, as compared to the early stage of the invasion.

Vedderlution_Baby · October 2006

truroute wrote:

Are you going to add anything to this conversation?

Wow. Can't win can I?

FinsburyParkCarrots · October 2006

reborncareerist wrote:

My bad ... Got the timeline mixed up.

Yep, this was in the first wave of the war.

FinsburyParkCarrots · October 2006

See, he was killed, in the first week or so (March 22, 2003):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Lloyd

US Marines murdered British journalist (Iraq)

Comments

Categories