A US Marine speaks out

[Turok]

Vin:
>I don't see how you can claim that his is
>delusional and a liar in view of posts that
>you have been replied to. Apparently it is
>you squirming without reading?....

So you just like making statement that make you look stupid? -- you accuse me of not reading and yet I have formatted and quoted the conflicting statements by this Marine several times now. For the benefit of those sloooooooow persons in the crowd I will do so again (refer to both orginal posts(Vins and mine) for context.)

>They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some
>warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit
>them up.

>They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on
>them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down
>weapons." That's what they were doing, but we
>were still lighting them up.

These two statements directly conflict -- thus he is either delusional or a liar.

The second statement (if true) describes his murdurous actions regardless of orders.

>Sooooo your opinion and for the record: he is either
>delusional or a liar, and later he is also a merderous
>thug regardless following orders or not.

I'm surprised you were able to figure it out on your own since I made my position so incredibly obtuse.

>Hmmm I thought a soldier was trained to follow
>orders, but that's another story on what discretion
>he can have in following his chain of command orders

They are trained NOT to follow obviously illegal orders such as "intentionally shoot weaponless civilians in a surrendered position". This training is part of Basic in every branch. Check out United States v. Keenan, one of the cases used in this training.

>In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was
>found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot
>and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military
>Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant
>to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature
>that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would
>know it to be illegal."

Vin:
>Nice try, I don't recall "redirecting" a response to
>you with a "warmonger statement"

Apparently you can't differentiate between past and future tense. Read my statement again and you will see that I never accused you of redirecting, but rather it was an invitation.

JB

 

[Turok]

Very well put RS.

JB

Quote from Error 404:

The interview seemed to be either reported badly, or conducted poorly. Either way, the answers were indeed inconsistent, so the subject of the interview may be mostly to blame. (anything is possible). We have no way of knowing. Sometimes interviews just don't work. Some people are better off not having their own words used to make their case. A good journalist needs to interpret the sense of some people for them. (Yes, the arguments against this are easy enough to understand...but reality is what it is).

Somehow, no matter where the fault lies for the lack of consistency and logic, there is something wrong with the whole picture as we read what was reported in this instance.

Personally, I get the sense that this Marine was being pretty forthcoming. And genuinely remorseful of his actions. That his message was as NVS interpreted it. Makes me feel sorry for the guy, yes, but not ready to excuse his behavior.

I do see Turok's points....there are big inconsistencies. There is at least a chance that the Marine was somehow trying to paint himself as a conscientious guy after the fact. Anyone here who can make 100% sense out of what was printed is a better man than I....I can't read anyone's mind. No one can. What this Marine was thinking at the time of the interview may indeed have very little to do with what he was thinking at the time of the incidents.

But what is most disturbing to me is that there is NO good side to this "story". If we are to believe that the Marine had only the interests of the innocent at heart, then we would be foolish. He admits to shooting non combatants in civilian clothing. Who may indeed pose potential threats, but where do you draw the line? When their hands are in the air seems a pretty good place for starters.

If we are to believe that the guy had remorse (which is certainly better than not having remorse, but not the same as being "innocent"), he is then guilty of having killed first and questioned himself later (EC said shoot first ask questions later....referring not to questions of one's own behavior but of those shot...a completely different issue).

All in all though, what NVS cited as the Marine's justification for his apparently unlawful acts was "following orders". NVS even wrote it in all caps.

But..... Following orders is no excuse (no matter that it seems very lately that American troops have been using that excuse fairly regularly).

The Nuremberg Trials made it very clear to the whole world that uniformed soldiers are indeed responsible for their own behavior.

ALL soldiers are taught the lessons of the rules of war during Basic Training or Boot Camp just as this Marine surely did.

When it comes to breaking the law...Laws of war in this case, the rules are clearly spelled out. It is no different than breaking laws as civilians. Except for the fact that as civilians, we are not explained all the rules. We know you cannot rob a bank. We know you cannot kill a guy with a knife in a bar. But we don't know all the laws. Soldiers, however, are taught the laws that apply to them.

Two things about the law are consistent in any system....military or civilian....and within any system of government.

1. Following orders if the orders are illegal is a crime.
2. Ignorance of the law never justifies breaking the law.

So this Marine has either been misquoted, or has mixed up his actions. No way does what he claims to have happened excuse his behavior if the behavior is as he described it (which may certainly be not the case....we have no way of knowing by reading what was presented to us).

No matter what the facts of the case are, the story is sad indeed.

Peace,
RS

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from Maverick74:

Hey NVS,

What? No view of the Berkeley Hills after your post? Show us that snapshot. LOL.

There's Mav, true to form, LOL-ing on stories of death and gore.

 

[nachos]

Quote from Turok:

>JB (ole buddy ) your effort to assassinate
>the Marine's character is bellow contempt.

No effort to assassinate his character is required...he does himself with his conflicting statement regarding the specific incident AND even more so by the following general statement...

>They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on
>them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down
>weapons." That's what they were doing, but we
>were still lighting them up.

So, people were getting the instructions, understanding the instructions, following the instructions AND YET "we were still lighting them up".

How are you going to squirm out of accepting that this Marine by *his own account* is a inconsistent murderous thug? (I'll be waiting).

JB

oh come on don't start your nit-picking bullshit on this thread too

 

[Turok]

Ahhh yes...let's be sure and not nit-pick a soldier murdering weaponless civilians with their hands up. If we nit-pick a little thing like that it leads to a very slippery slope.

Quote from nachos:

oh come on don't start your nit-picking bullshit on this thread too

 

[nachos]

Quote from Turok:

Ahhh yes...let's be sure and not nit-pick a soldier murdering weaponless civilians with their hands up. If we nit-pick a little thing like that it leads to a very slippery slope.

i have an idea for cynical "brave" souls like you. go over join a combat unit get the "true" story for us; then you can come back and provide sworn court-room like testimony in the best of grammar.

 

[axeman]

Ah yes.... yet another COWARD creates a new ID just
to attack his well armed opponent

LMAOOOOOO.... what a cowardly loser

Sad and pathetic. Show yourself you chicken livered little shit


peace

axeman

Quote from nachos:

i have an idea for cynical "brave" souls like you. go over join a combat unit get the "true" story for us; then you can come back and provide sworn court-room like testimony in the best of grammar.

 

[Nolan-Vinny-Sam]

Quote from Error 404:

The interview seemed to be either reported badly, or conducted poorly. Either way..

...So this Marine has either been misquoted, or has mixed up his actions. No way does what he claims to have happened excuse his behavior if the behavior is as he described it (which may certainly be not the case....we have no way of knowing by reading what was presented to us).

No matter what the facts of the case are, the story is sad indeed.

Peace,
RS

Agreed it is sad.... We've seen both better and worst interviews. Maybe we need a set of acceptable interview standards for next time?

Quote from ElCubano:

its plain and simple Nolan...and believe u me I have been against the WAR from the get go ( because

We are on the same page, War a very ugly thing, best to be avoided...

Quote from axeman:



......Keep dodging the ENTIRE issue.
Dont bother answering my challenge and proving
anything you have stated.

......You have officially run away from the debate and have conceded.

Axeman, you pose no challenge what's so ever..Yawn blah blah blah...just your same crap different day routine lol.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE OFFICIALLY RUN FROM THE debate AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CONCEDED. Quote me conceding or leaving.
Yer not only blind, but stupid to boot.
Obviously your statement is plain wrong..well as the rest of your arguments, nothing new there. I'm sure you'll keep on ranting along...
You have no argument to start with, just garbage worded to look like it has meaning. No major revelation there.


ahhh yes the "Like I said.... logically impaired. The label fits."
Again It will be better for your self esteem if you remove the mirror in front of you.

Sorry bud, take your crap elsewhere. It's getting old...Again...

Quote from Turok:


>They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some
>warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit
>them up.

>They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on
>them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down
>weapons." That's what they were doing, but we
>were still lighting them up.

These two statements directly conflict -- thus he is either delusional or a liar....


Vin:
>Nice try, I don't recall "redirecting" a response to
>you with a "warmonger statement"

Apparently you can't differentiate between past and future tense. Read my statement again and you will see that I never accused you of redirecting, but rather it was an invitation.

JB

ok it seems this is what started the fights here.

You assume that these Iraqis: group A
>They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some
>warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit
>them up.

are the same as these, group B
They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on
>them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down
>weapons." That's what they were doing, but we
>were still lighting them up.

Reread the interview, it doesn't seem to be case. These two groups of Iraqis are amongst the many cars and (walking maybe) that crossed..He is talking about many cars and over the period of Baghdad invasion. It didn't happen in few minutes...

And that's why my first response to you. So I don't see lying and inconsistency there. He is talking about separate incidents as examples out of the many. The pamphlets were air dropped earlier before even the invasion began as part of the preparation.

Do you assume that the Marine interviewed threw the pamphlets on these same Iraqis during that incident and after they got gunned down?

I have difficulty attacking our Marine's character down there especially a 12 year old veteran and in view of what they are going through.... On legalities, heck there was a Geneva convention, that seems to have been circumvented from the "top" with new "directives for enemy treatment". But this war was ILLEGAL to start with...Anyway..Knowingly killing civilians is criminal, what does that say for the whole mess there?

Your "redirection" statement was fully understood. Nowhere I said that you did accuse me of calling you a warmonger in the past. I did not recall at that moment if I did or not, and out of courtesy I pulled back assuming I was in error, that's all. ok??????? (a preemptive invitation?) sheeeeesh

 

[fofumfee]

Good military training of the order followers requires them not to think about not following orders. The split second of the soldier in doubt may mean the difference between life or death of other soldiers.

Yes, they are supposed to know "right" from "wrong" but in the heat of battle, they should be more reasonable than most Americans are reasonable in their daily lives?

Given the stress of their job, a state of temporary insanity is very understandable.

If you look at the veterans of Vietnam, there is a split among them. More than 30 years later, many are not conflicted at all about the experience, others are deeply conflicted, confused, angry, etc. Kerry had a reaction to his Vietnam experience, which was similar to others who had different responses.

The man who was interviewed, if this story is accurate, sounds to me like he is in a state of shock and post traumatic stress syndrome. He is all over the map because his emotions are all over the map, and he has had little time to digest the experiences.

Those who expect a marine who experienced the trauma of war as described, who participated in the killing of civilians while following orders should be held to Turok's standards of reason and consistency?

Hogwash.

We have an administration who builds their case on justification, and "the end justifies the means" and we expect the "grunts" to be moral and reasonable and keep to the highest standards of principle? The administration leads by the example of doing what they want despite the warnings of caution by our allies, so the soldiers under this administration should be more civil and accommodating to the situation?

The administration acts brutishly and thuggish, but the soldiers are required to act consistently and reasonably under their conditions?

Can you imagine George Bush or Rumsy, etc. and all of the chicken-hawks, showing restraint at a civilian Iraqi citizen who possibly posed a risk to their own life?

I don't blame the soldiers who are in battle, I blame the order givers who are not in battle, who are not under fire, who are not risking their lives in their daily duties.

Quote from Error 404:

The interview seemed to be either reported badly, or conducted poorly. Either way, the answers were indeed inconsistent, so the subject of the interview may be mostly to blame. (anything is possible). We have no way of knowing. Sometimes interviews just don't work. Some people are better off not having their own words used to make their case. A good journalist needs to interpret the sense of some people for them. (Yes, the arguments against this are easy enough to understand...but reality is what it is).

Somehow, no matter where the fault lies for the lack of consistency and logic, there is something wrong with the whole picture as we read what was reported in this instance.

Personally, I get the sense that this Marine was being pretty forthcoming. And genuinely remorseful of his actions. That his message was as NVS interpreted it. Makes me feel sorry for the guy, yes, but not ready to excuse his behavior.

I do see Turok's points....there are big inconsistencies. There is at least a chance that the Marine was somehow trying to paint himself as a conscientious guy after the fact. Anyone here who can make 100% sense out of what was printed is a better man than I....I can't read anyone's mind. No one can. What this Marine was thinking at the time of the interview may indeed have very little to do with what he was thinking at the time of the incidents.

But what is most disturbing to me is that there is NO good side to this "story". If we are to believe that the Marine had only the interests of the innocent at heart, then we would be foolish. He admits to shooting non combatants in civilian clothing. Who may indeed pose potential threats, but where do you draw the line? When their hands are in the air seems a pretty good place for starters.

If we are to believe that the guy had remorse (which is certainly better than not having remorse, but not the same as being "innocent"), he is then guilty of having killed first and questioned himself later (EC said shoot first ask questions later....referring not to questions of one's own behavior but of those shot...a completely different issue).

All in all though, what NVS cited as the Marine's justification for his apparently unlawful acts was "following orders". NVS even wrote it in all caps.

But..... Following orders is no excuse (no matter that it seems very lately that American troops have been using that excuse fairly regularly).

The Nuremberg Trials made it very clear to the whole world that uniformed soldiers are indeed responsible for their own behavior.

ALL soldiers are taught the lessons of the rules of war during Basic Training or Boot Camp just as this Marine surely did.

When it comes to breaking the law...Laws of war in this case, the rules are clearly spelled out. It is no different than breaking laws as civilians. Except for the fact that as civilians, we are not explained all the rules. We know you cannot rob a bank. We know you cannot kill a guy with a knife in a bar. But we don't know all the laws. Soldiers, however, are taught the laws that apply to them.

Two things about the law are consistent in any system....military or civilian....and within any system of government.

1. Following orders if the orders are illegal is a crime.
2. Ignorance of the law never justifies breaking the law.

So this Marine has either been misquoted, or has mixed up his actions. No way does what he claims to have happened excuse his behavior if the behavior is as he described it (which may certainly be not the case....we have no way of knowing by reading what was presented to us).

No matter what the facts of the case are, the story is sad indeed.

Peace,
RS

 

[axeman]

Listen up mr logically impaired.

You have effectively conceded when you fail, no REFUSE, to
back up your assertion.

You are running away, when you REFUSE to defend yourself
or answer my challenge, and instead just attack me.

That is exactly what you have done.

But to make it clear.... let me refresh your flawed memory,
and I quote:

I don't see how you can claim that his is delusional and a liar in view of posts that you have been replied to. Apparently it is you squirming without reading?....
Sooooo your opinion and for the record: he is either delusional or a liar, and later he is also a merderous thug regardless following orders or not.


Here you clearly are claiming there is an inconsistency in
Turoks statements.

There clearly is not, so I CHALLENGED YOU TO FORMALLY
POINT OUT THE CONTRADICTION

SINCE THEN, you continually have DODGED the issue and
instead attacked me, and name called.


To be clear: YOU FAILED TO BACK UP YOUR STUPID ASSERT
AND YOU CONCEDED BY REFUSING TO DEBATE AND INSTEAD
SLING MUD


Keep running away.... because you dont make any sense.

Everyone here has already stated they SEE THE INCONSISTENCY
in the story. Only you seem logically incapable of identifying it.

As for the rest of your post, typical 100% unsupported silly assertions on your part.
How typical. Blah blah blah axe this, axe that.

How about backing up ONE THING YOU STATE, just ONCE? LMAOOO

Pathetic. All you can do is spew crap all day long without
supporting it. Sad very sad.



So I reiterate. You are logically impaired.
The proof? You cant identify obvious inconsistencies to save your life.


Bye bye Nolan.... go learn how to think properly ok? LOL


peace

axeman

Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:

Agreed it is sad.... We've seen both better and worst interviews. Maybe we need a set of acceptable interview standards for next time?



We are on the same page, War a very ugly thing, best to be avoided...


Axeman, you pose no challenge what's so ever..Yawn blah blah blah...just your same crap different day routine lol.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE OFFICIALLY RUN FROM THE debate AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CONCEDED. Quote me conceding or leaving.
Yer not only blind, but stupid to boot.
Obviously your statement is plain wrong..well as the rest of your arguments, nothing new there. I'm sure you'll keep on ranting along...
You have no argument to start with, just garbage worded to look like it has meaning. No major revelation there.


ahhh yes the "Like I said.... logically impaired. The label fits."
Again It will be better for your self esteem if you remove the mirror in front of you.

Sorry bud, take your crap elsewhere. It's getting old...Again...



ok it seems this is what started the fights here.

You assume that these Iraqis: group A
>They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some
>warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit
>them up.

are the same as these, group B
They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on
>them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down
>weapons." That's what they were doing, but we
>were still lighting them up.

Reread the interview, it doesn't seem to be case. These two groups of Iraqis are amongst the many cars and (walking maybe) that crossed..He is talking about many cars and over the period of Baghdad invasion. It didn't happen in few minutes...

And that's why my first response to you. So I don't see lying and inconsistency there. He is talking about separate incidents as examples out of the many. The pamphlets were air dropped earlier before even the invasion began as part of the preparation.

Do you assume that the Marine interviewed threw the pamphlets on these same Iraqis during that incident and after they got gunned down?

I have difficulty attacking our Marine's character down there especially a 12 year old veteran and in view of what they are going through.... On legalities, heck there was a Geneva convention, that seems to have been circumvented from the "top" with new "directives for enemy treatment". But this war was ILLEGAL to start with...Anyway..Knowingly killing civilians is criminal, what does that say for the whole mess there?

Your "redirection" statement was fully understood. Nowhere I said that you did accuse me of calling you a warmonger in the past. I did not recall at that moment if I did or not, and out of courtesy I pulled back assuming I was in error, that's all. ok??????? (a preemptive invitation?) sheeeeesh