House Conservatives Demand Napolitano Resign

[finity]

No, I am not paranoid. If the report said that everyone with the first name BLUE and the last name of SPOOK might have extremist tendencies, then the government has targeted me for further investigation of whatever depth the government deems necessary. The DHS listed veterans, I am a veteran, so how have they not targeted me for further investigation at some point?

Actually they listed 'disgruntled veterans' not 'veterans'. There is a difference. They also aren't targeting them. It was just a statement of fact that 'disgruntled veterans' are just one group that right-wing extremist groups recruit from.

I can draw that conclusion because we aren't on the internet or news (whatever venue you choose, I'm not listing them all here) beheading them, standing them before a firing squad, hanging them, etc. and saying that we are killing them for their religion like they have done with their captives.

So because we aren't killing them for the same reasons & in the same ways they are killing us you deny that they are being killed by us or that they would fear that we will kill them? Do you know for a fact that there have been no summary executions?

The U.S. is not leaving bodies beside the road or in villages as a warning to the rest of the population there to co-operate with us in whatever we ask of them.

You obviously have no clue about the concept of 'demoralization'. Do you honestly think our strategy of the so called "shock & awe" was not supposed to demoralize the enemy? To get them to do exactly as we say or else? Did we as the invading forces clean up the bodies we left beside the roads or did we let the civilian population do that (as best they could)? Do you not think that those bodies they were cleaning up that we left behind also didn't give to the civilian population a warning about supporting those who would oppose us?

It is reasonable to conclude that they know that the U.S. has a history of not killing those that we remove from the battlefield unlike other countries that have fought in the same AO in the past, or since we are being completely honest here, their own countrymen.

I, personally, don't know of any person that has died under interrogation conditions or in our prisons for them from the first Gulf War until the present. I have not seen anything saying that it has happened.

Really? You haven't been paying attention then have you?

There have been numerous accounts from both Iraq & Afghanistan of our guys, either intentionally or out of neglect or disregard for human life, causing the death of prisoners under our direct control. There have been convictions. Not all of the people who were arrested & put in those prisons were terrorists. Some were legitimate POWs. Others were innocent civilians caught up in the sweep by being in the wrong place at the wrong time or 'looking like' somebody else.

The only deaths that I have read about have been where the prisoner has taken their own life through suicide.

Suicide? "the only deaths"...?? Riiiight.

And dying by accident? I have as much chance of dying by accident during being pulled over by a LEO for a traffic ticket as a prisoner does dying by accident.

Holy crap! Really!? You have as much chance of dying during a traffic stop as someone in a war zone!? Could you please tell me where that is so I don't ever visit that part of the state?

Once again you muddle civil, criminal and military legal systems with no distinction between the three. I can't explain the differences between the three any plainer that it has been explained to you by various members here in the past.

No. Terrorists are criminals. Just like any other criminal who commits a heinous crime. A US terrorist (i.e. McVeigh) has just as many rights as any other criminal. So should a foreign terrorist if tried by us.

The rights we have are not given to us by our Constitution. They are rights we have as humans. To state otherwise makes you anti-American.

 

[BloodEclipse]

finity is this you on the left?

 

[Crystalship1]

finity is this you on the left?

Baaaahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!! Repped!!

 

[finity]

finity is this you on the left?

So now that we've determined that you can't argue the points I've made...

Maturity is not your strong suit I see.

It hasn't been only liberals who have gotten this country in the state its in. Conservatives aren't blameless. Both sides have their problems. If you can't see that then you need to open your eyes, be honest with yourself & grow up just a little...

 

[BloodEclipse]

So now that we've determined that you can't argue the points I've made...

Maturity is not your strong suit I see.

It hasn't been only liberals who have gotten this country in the state its in. Conservatives aren't blameless. Both sides have their problems. If you can't see that then you need to open your eyes, be honest with yourself & grow up just a little...

I would argue that point. There are some who call themselves Conservatives, who are anything but. Conservatives happen to think the Constitution is the law of the land and not a living breathing document that needs to be changed in order to facilitate more Socialism.

 

[finity]

I would argue that point. There are some who call themselves Conservatives, who are anything but. Conservatives happen to think the Constitution is the law of the land and not a living breathing document that needs to be changed in order to facilitate more Socialism.

Socialism is not the only problem facing this country.

Conservatives don't have any problems reinterpreting the Constitution when it stands in the way of their desired goals, either.

Don't try the old cop-out by stating that "they're not true conservatives". They say they're conservatives, they were voted into office by conservatives & are accepted into a group of people who define themselves as being conservatives - they're conservatives. Just because you, specifically, don't like their actions doesn't mean they aren't conservatives.

You wouldn't let me get away with stating that the extreme-left liberals or those I don't agree with aren't true liberals. Neither can you.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Actually they listed 'disgruntled veterans' not 'veterans'. There is a difference. They also aren't targeting them. It was just a statement of fact that 'disgruntled veterans' are just one group that right-wing extremist groups recruit from.

Since there is no official way of classifying a "disgruntled veteran" from a non-disgruntled "veteran" unless the disgruntled veteran self-announces, all veterans are suspect.

So because we aren't killing them for the same reasons & in the same ways they are killing us you deny that they are being killed by us or that they would fear that we will kill them? Do you know for a fact that there have been no summary executions?

We are killing them on the battlefield. If they are on the battlefield, they rightly should have a fear of being killed.

I don't know if there have been summary executions just like you don't know that there have been. Moot point, unprovable either way until there is a trial and successful conviction for someone accused of summarily executing a POW not on the battlefield.

You obviously have no clue about the concept of 'demoralization'. Do you honestly think our strategy of the so called "shock & awe" was not supposed to demoralize the enemy? To get them to do exactly as we say or else? Did we as the invading forces clean up the bodies we left beside the roads or did we let the civilian population do that (as best they could)? Do you not think that those bodies they were cleaning up that we left behind also didn't give to the civilian population a warning about supporting those who would oppose us?

If bodies are left by the roadside after a firefight and civilians are forced for burying the dead, that is the opposite of summarily executing a group of POWs and leaving them in a pile or dumping a pile of dead POWs by the road to leave a message.

Really? You haven't been paying attention then have you?

Yes, I have.

There have been numerous accounts from both Iraq & Afghanistan of our guys, either intentionally or out of neglect or disregard for human life, causing the death of prisoners under our direct control. There have been convictions.

Not from what I saw in my google search. Trials, yes. Convictions, no.

Not all of the people who were arrested & put in those prisons were terrorists. Some were legitimate POWs. Others were innocent civilians caught up in the sweep by being in the wrong place at the wrong time or 'looking like' somebody else.

I did not see any trials for a POW that died while under our control for someone that "looked like somebody else" or that were innocent civilians. Care to try an actual debatable point?

Suicide? "the only deaths"...?? Riiiight.

After a google search, I concede this point. I did read where there have been deaths of POWs from physical abuse.

Holy crap! Really!? You have as much chance of dying during a traffic stop as someone in a war zone!? Could you please tell me where that is so I don't ever visit that part of the state?

False argument.

The POWs that died were in a prison. We, or at least I, am talking about dying while in a prison under controlled circumstances. Not in a "war zone" aka battlefield like you are alluding to.

No. Terrorists are criminals. Just like any other criminal who commits a heinous crime. A US terrorist (i.e. McVeigh) has just as many rights as any other criminal. So should a foreign terrorist if tried by us.

You blew this one completely because you asked a question, I answered and you are responding to something other than the point that we, or at least I, were talking about.

If the terrorists were uniformed and abiding by the GC, yes, they have rights. They have chosen how they want to fight so their rights are limited in the due process of a trial, which still recognizes that they have some inherent rights.

The rights we have are not given to us by our Constitution. They are rights we have as humans. To state otherwise makes you anti-American.

I have not stated otherwise.

 

[finity]

I don't know if there have been summary executions just like you don't know that there have been. Moot point, unprovable either way until there is a trial and successful conviction for someone accused of summarily executing a POW not on the battlefield.

Not from what I saw in my google search. Trials, yes. Convictions, no.

Yes, I have.

No you haven't.

Here you go:

FOXNews.com - U.S. Soldier Pleads Not Guilty to Iraq Murder Charges at Court-Martial - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

or:

U.S. Soldiers Kill Unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis | War on Iraq | AlterNet

I found those two after about 5 minutes of googling.

Those above prove my point about murder of detainees/POWs & summary executions.

Trials & convictions. As the second story indicates they are just the tip of the iceberg.

If bodies are left by the roadside after a firefight and civilians are forced for burying the dead, that is the opposite of summarily executing a group of POWs and leaving them in a pile or dumping a pile of dead POWs by the road to leave a message.

So again I say, just because the tactics may be different (but based on the above stories I'm not convinced some of the tactics are different) doesn't mean the end result isn't the same.

Ignoring even the above instances "shock & awe" was designed to have a psychological effect not just on the military but on the civilian population as well. Just like the terrorists tactics are designed to have not just a psychological impact on our (or their own) civilian population but on the military as well. Both say "don't mess with us".

I did not see any trials for a POW that died while under our control for someone that "looked like somebody else" or that were innocent civilians. Care to try an actual debatable point?

You know that's not what I said. Here it is again:

Not all of the people who were arrested & put in those prisons were terrorists. Some were legitimate POWs. Others were innocent civilians caught up in the sweep by being in the wrong place at the wrong time or 'looking like' somebody else.

I said people died under our control & were convicted. I said not all the people who were there were POWs or terrorists. Therefore it follows logically that not all the people who died under our control were terrorists or POWs. Therefore some of the people who died were innocent civilians. How they got there is immaterial.

Aside from that when you say:

If the terrorists were uniformed and abiding by the GC, yes, they have rights. They have chosen how they want to fight so their rights are limited in the due process of a trial, which still recognizes that they have some inherent rights.

it is still illegal to abuse (and murder is pretty serious abuse - at least to me) POWs or terrorists, with or without uniforms, by the UCMJ & US law.

Good that you also agree with me that even terrorists have rights.

After a google search, I concede this point. I did read where there have been deaths of POWs from physical abuse.

Good. We're on a roll here. We might be getting somewhere.

The POWs that died were in a prison. We, or at least I, am talking about dying while in a prison under controlled circumstances. Not in a "war zone" aka battlefield like you are alluding to.

Actually it was pretty obvious I was talking about prisoners dying in a "prison under controlled circumstances" in the said 'war zone' not on the battlefield.

So you still stand by you statement that you have as much of a chance of dying during a traffic stop here as you do dying 'by accident' (neglect, abuse, torture, etc.) as a detainee in a prison in a war zone? If so then, again, tell me where so I don't go there.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Here you go:

FOXNews.com - U.S. Soldier Pleads Not Guilty to Iraq Murder Charges at Court-Martial - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

or:

U.S. Soldiers Kill Unarmed Iraqis and Afghanis | War on Iraq | AlterNet

I found those two after about 5 minutes of googling.

Those above prove my point about murder of detainees/POWs & summary executions.

Trials & convictions. As the second story indicates they are just the tip of the iceberg.

You really should read the links that you posted. The first link, the soldier pleaded not guilty to the charges that are:

Hatley's civilian lawyer, David Court, said the case was based only only testimony, not actual evidence. The bodies of the Iraqis have never been found.

The second link had a couple of interesting quotes in it too.

Last November, for example, another military jury acquitted Hensley in the same murder of Janabi as well as in the killing of two other Iraqi men south of Baghdad in the early days of Bush's troop "surge." That jury ruled that Hensley was following the approved "rules of engagement," though it did convict him of planting an AK-47 on one victim.

Some of Vela's military comrades complained that it was unfair to single any of them out for punishment because these killings are so common in Iraq.

and

Staffel's civilian lawyer Mark Waple said the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded in April that the shooting was "justifiable homicide," but a two-star general in Afghanistan instigated a murder charge against the two men. That case, however, foundered over accusations that the charge was improperly filed. [IHT, Sept. 17, 2007]

According to evidence at the Fort Bragg proceedings, the earlier Army investigation had cleared the two soldiers because they had been operating under rules of engagement that empowered them to kill individuals who have been designated "enemy combatants," even if the targets were unarmed and presented no visible threat.

and

In an e-mail interview with the New York Times, Sgt. Hensley, who gave Vela the order to execute the Iraqi detainee Janabi, complained that he [Hensley] should not have even faced a court martial because he was following guidance from two superior officers who wanted him to boost the unit's kill count.

"Every last man we killed was a confirmed terrorist," Hensley wrote. "We were praised when bad guys died. We were upbraided when bad guys did not die." [NYT, Nov. 9, 2007]

In another incident near the town of Iskandariya, Iraq, on April 27, 2007, Army sniper Jorge G. Sandoval Jr. received an order from Sgt. Hensley to kill a man cutting grass with a rusty scythe because he was suspected of being an insurgent posing as a farmer.

Like Hensley, Sandoval was acquitted because the military jury accepted defense arguments that the killing was within the rules of engagement. (Sandoval was convicted of a lesser charge of planting a coil of copper wire on a slain Iraqi, and was sentenced to five months in prison.)

The Sandoval case also revealed a classified program in which the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group encouraged U.S. military snipers in Iraq to drop "bait" -- such as electrical cords and ammunition -- and then shoot Iraqis who pick up the items. [Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2007]

It sounds to me as if there is an agenda being pushed if the ACIC is finding that these killings are justified but a General feels otherwise.

So again I say, just because the tactics may be different (but based on the above stories I'm not convinced some of the tactics are different) doesn't mean the end result isn't the same.

If I kill someone in self defense, the result is the same as if I murdered him (death for him). The tactics are different but the result is the same.

Ignoring even the above instances "shock & awe" was designed to have a psychological effect not just on the military but on the civilian population as well. Just like the terrorists tactics are designed to have not just a psychological impact on our (or their own) civilian population but on the military as well. Both say "don't mess with us".

And the problem with is?

Shock and awe "tells" any military combatants that, if you persist, you are going to die on the battlefield. It tells non-combatants to stay away from and out of any firefight that is going on. Shock and awe on the battlefield has nothing to do with the possibility of dying in a U.S. prison from any causation, direct or indirect.

I said people died under our control & were convicted. I said not all the people who were there were POWs or terrorists. Therefore it follows logically that not all the people who died under our control were terrorists or POWs. Therefore some of the people who died were innocent civilians. How they got there is immaterial.

And the catch-22 is, how do you know that they were innocent if they hadn't been granted a trial before their death? Once again, an unprovable point. You are making an educated guess, but it is still a guess. Just to be clear, I don't know that everyone being held is guilty, nor do I know that there are innocents among the guilty. I cannot say, as you did, that there are innocents being held along with the guilty.

it is still illegal to abuse (and murder is pretty serious abuse - at least to me) POWs or terrorists, with or without uniforms, by the UCMJ & US law.

Yes, it is. That is why the interrogators have SOPs to follow based on policy set by the DOD and the Whitehouse, as right or wrong as those policies may be.

Actually it was pretty obvious I was talking about prisoners dying in a "prison under controlled circumstances" in the said 'war zone' not on the battlefield.

No, you said:

Holy crap! Really!? You have as much chance of dying during a traffic stop as someone in a war zone!? Could you please tell me where that is so I don't ever visit that part of the state?

Gitmo is not located in a war zone the last time I looked at a map.

So you still stand by you statement that you have as much of a chance of dying during a traffic stop here as you do dying 'by accident' (neglect, abuse, torture, etc.) as a detainee in a prison in a war zone? If so then, again, tell me where so I don't go there.

How many people have died in the last year on Indiana's roads from a driver plowing into the back of the police vehicle, that pulled them over, and the resulting chain reaction? Or not killed but also injured, maimed? It happens all over Indiana so maybe you shouldn't live here. (I'm only kidding with the last sentence. I don't want to seem serious ALL the time.)

 

[finity]

You really should read the links that you posted. The first link, the soldier pleaded not guilty to the charges

You should have read further down. He was one of 5 that were tried (& convicted) in connection with the crimes.

On March 30, Mayo was sentenced to 35 years in prison with the possibility of parole after pleading guilty to premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder.
.
Leahy was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after he admitted to the killing of one of the detainees and shooting another.
.
Two more soldiers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and were sentenced to prison last year

This quote right here is one of the most 'interesting':

Some of Vela's military comrades complained that it was unfair to single any of them out for punishment because these killings are so common in Iraq.

In an e-mail interview with the New York Times, Sgt. Hensley, who gave Vela the order to execute the Iraqi detainee Janabi, complained that he [Hensley] should not have even faced a court martial because he was following guidance from two superior officers who wanted him to boost the unit's kill count.

"...but vee ver just followink orders"[end thick German accent]

In another incident near the town of Iskandariya, Iraq, on April 27, 2007, Army sniper Jorge G. Sandoval Jr. received an order from Sgt. Hensley to kill a man cutting grass with a rusty scythe because he was suspected of being an insurgent posing as a farmer.

Like Hensley, Sandoval was acquitted because the military jury accepted defense arguments that the killing was within the rules of engagement. (Sandoval was convicted of a lesser charge of planting a coil of copper wire on a slain Iraqi, and was sentenced to five months in prison.)

I hope you aren't trying to argue that there is no difference between killing a bound detainee under our direct control & a sniper killing a legitimate military target?

It sounds to me as if there is an agenda being pushed if the ACIC is finding that these killings are justified but a General feels otherwise.

Maybe but which side has the 'agenda'?

If I kill someone in self defense, the result is the same as if I murdered him (death for him). The tactics are different but the result is the same.

Nice redirect but you know we're not talking about the deaths but the psychlogical effect on the survivors.

In self-defense you kill for a different reason than the murderer. You have little choice.

In this case we are both killing for the same reasons (shock & awe).

And the problem with is?

Shock and awe "tells" any military combatants that, if you persist, you are going to die on the battlefield. It tells non-combatants to stay away from and out of any firefight that is going on. Shock and awe on the battlefield has nothing to do with the possibility of dying in a U.S. prison from any causation, direct or indirect.

The problem is that the shock & awe wasn't just limited to the battlefield, it was carried over into the legal (or illegal) aftermath. That's when we became just like Saddam or the terrorists.

Just to be clear, I don't know that everyone being held is guilty, nor do I know that there are innocents among the guilty. I cannot say, as you did, that there are innocents being held along with the guilty.

Then again you haven't been paying attention. Do I really have to post another link to prove my point?

Yes, it is. That is why the interrogators have SOPs to follow based on policy set by the DOD and the Whitehouse, as right or wrong as those policies may be.

So if the policies are illegal but are policies nonetheless then that somehow makes them legal? They're legal because the President says so? That establishes a dangerous precedent, wouldn't you agree?

[again with the thick german accent] "...but vee ver just followink orders"

Gitmo is not located in a war zone the last time I looked at a map.

True but we're not just talking about Gitmo. We've got a lot more prisons in Iraq or Afghanistan than Gitmo.

How many people have died in the last year on Indiana's roads from a driver plowing into the back of the police vehicle, that pulled them over, and the resulting chain reaction? Or not killed but also injured, maimed?

I don't know. Probably not that many. Do you have the numbers? Then we can at least begin a comparison. Until then, as you say, you make an unprovable point.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

You should have read further down. He was one of 5 that were tried (& convicted) in connection with the crimes.

You and I are not reading the same link that you posted. He was not "one of 5".

Master Sgt. John Hatley, 40, was charged with premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and obstruction of justice in the shootings that took place in spring 2007 in the Iraqi capital.

This quote right here is one of the most 'interesting':

You should have read the entire quote, especially the second paragraph:

"Every last man we killed was a confirmed terrorist," Hensley wrote.

"...but vee ver just followink orders"[end thick German accent]

Nice. Except that wasn't his defense.

I hope you aren't trying to argue that there is no difference between killing a bound detainee under our direct control & a sniper killing a legitimate military target?

Nope, I'm saying that the sniper and the interrogator both have ROEs that they operate under. If a combatant or a non-combatant die while our soldiers were within their ROEs, it is legally justifiable. It doesn't mean that we just say, "Oops" and move on, we may have to modify the ROEs to limit the chance of loss of life as much as is feasible in a given situation.

Techniques and equipment that should be less than lethal are not always so, e.g. Tazers.

Maybe but which side has the 'agenda'?

I don't think that you and I will ever come to an agreement on this.

Nice redirect but you know we're not talking about the deaths but the psychlogical effect on the survivors.

You keep saying this. You brought it up and I discounted it because I am talking about the fear of death in prison. I still cannot see how you equate bodies on an open battlefield to fear of death in Gitmo.

In self-defense you kill for a different reason than the murderer. You have little choice.

In this case we are both killing for the same reasons (shock & awe).

Again, deflection on your part because you wrote:

So again I say, just because the tactics may be different (but based on the above stories I'm not convinced some of the tactics are different) doesn't mean the end result isn't the same.

You said the result is the same, regardless of how it occurred.

The problem is that the shock & awe wasn't just limited to the battlefield, it was carried over into the legal (or illegal) aftermath. That's when we became just like Saddam or the terrorists.

We test NBC weapons on our own troops? On our own civilians?

Our elected leaders brought convicts before them in public and private spectacles of abuse, torture and eventual death like Saddam and his two sons did?

Our leaders have publicly hunted down members of their own families and executed them because they didn't agree with the leader's political views?

Our leaders have set fire to another sovereign country's natural resources like Saddam did with all the oil wells in an "If I can't have them, nobody will have them" tantrum?

Our country lost a war and yet our leaders told us (lied), the populace, that we actually won it (first Gulf war), and it was accepted because the media is all government controlled with no dissenting opinions allowed?

Your statement completely reinforces to me that you and I have completely different ideas of what the U.S. represents and what Saddam's regime (another difference) stood for. I beg to differ that we do not live in a dictatorship, unlike Iraq before Saddam was removed.

Then again you haven't been paying attention. Do I really have to post another link to prove my point?

You can't have it both ways, Finity. Either they are all guilty and deserving of some level of interrogation or they are all innocent until they have been through a trial.

You keep leading back to actions on the battlefield when our original discussion was in regard to whether or not a person captured and detained has a reasonable expectation of death in one of our prisons.

The two links you provided I cut you some slack on to see where you were going with it. So far, you haven't posted a link showing where a prisoner died in our prison system where someone in the service of the U.S., civilian or military, was tried, convicted and sentenced or a source that says there is a reasonable expectation of death if captured by the U.S.

So if the policies are illegal but are policies nonetheless then that somehow makes them legal? They're legal because the President says so? That establishes a dangerous precedent, wouldn't you agree?

[again with the thick german accent] "...but vee ver just followink orders"

No.

When my unit was tasked with gathering intelligence about a given subject during a deployment, we were given "free reign" to collect that intelligence however we saw fit within the applicable SIGINT, ELINT, HUMINT, PHOTINT or COMINT regulations. We used whatever legal means were available to us at that time. As Congress and Clinton changed their minds on how and when we were allowed to collect intel, our guiding publications were updated and word was disseminated in the unit about the changes so that no one in the unit broke federal or international law.

The difference between how we conducted business then and what is currently happening now is that "O" is not coming after me now, fifteen years later because he decided now that he doesn't like the rules that we operated under fifteen years ago, so he is going to prosecute me for it.

The rules were and are legal because, yes, the president and Congress says that those ROEs are the legal boundaries to operate under.

So, no. I don't agree with you because that is how it's always been.

True but we're not just talking about Gitmo. We've got a lot more prisons in Iraq or Afghanistan than Gitmo.

You tend to defend the left, and the left screams about Gitmo the loudest so it seems a fitting example to use here.

I don't know. Probably not that many. Do you have the numbers? Then we can at least begin a comparison. Until then, as you say, you make an unprovable point.

This is the closest that I could find to the question that I posed:

Among the police officers killed nationwide in a single year, 13 were struck by vehicles while they were on duty outside of their vehicles. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, during the five-year period of 1996-2000, motorists in Florida crashed into working law enforcement vehicles that were stopped/parked along Florida roadways 1,793 times, resulting in five deaths and 419 injuries.

I know that it relates to Florida. I'll use those numbers for my example though. 1,793 crashes, five deaths and 419 injuries, just to LEOs. Extrapolate civilian injuries using those numbers and I believe it to be far more deaths and injuries that those experienced in our detainee prisons.

 

[finity]

You and I are not reading the same link that you posted. He was not "one of 5".

OK. I'll post the entire article & bold the applicable parts:

U.S. Soldier Pleads Not Guilty to Iraq Murder Charges at Court-Martial

Monday , April 13, 2009

VILSECK, Germany —
A U.S. Army soldier who prosecutors assert hatched the plan for the execution-style slayings of four bound, blindfolded Iraqis by the side of a Baghdad canal pleaded not guilty to murder at his court-martial Monday.

Master Sgt. John Hatley, 40, was charged with premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and obstruction of justice in the shootings that took place in spring 2007 in the Iraqi capital.

At the hearing, Hatley, dressed in his green formal uniform, entered his plea to Army judge Col. Jeffrey Nance. A jury of eight soldiers — a mix of officers and non-commissioned officers — will hear the case, which is expected to last through the week.

If convicted, Hatley could be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutor Capt. Derrick Grace said it was Hatley who decided to kill the four men and that he, along with two other men — Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Mayo and Sgt. Michael Leahy — walked to the canal where the four Iraqis were and shot them dead.

"In a few days I ask you to come back here to find the accused guilty of all charges," Grace said, addressing the jury.

Hatley's civilian lawyer, David Court, said the case was based only only testimony, not actual evidence. The bodies of the Iraqis have never been found.

"There is no autopsy, body or cause of death. There's no evidence, just testimony," he told the court. "There's no evidence that people died because of a shooting."

Hatley also faces charges of murder stemming from a separate incident in January 2007. A charge of conspiracy to commit murder in that case was dismissed on Monday.

Hatley, whose hometown has not been disclosed, is the last of five soldiers to face trial in the slayings of the four Iraqis. His court-martial at the U.S. Army Rose Barracks in southeastern Germany could last as long as a week, officials said.

On March 30, Mayo was sentenced to 35 years in prison with the possibility of parole after pleading guilty to premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. He is expected to testify against Hatley.

According to testimony at previous courts-martial, at least four Iraqis were taken into custody in spring 2007 after an exchange of fire with Hatley's unit and the discovery of weapons in a building where suspects had fled.

The detainees were taken to the unit's base for questioning and processing, but there wasn't enough evidence to hold them for attacking the unit. Later that night, patrol members took the men to a remote area and shot them so that they would not be able to attack U.S. forces again, Mayo testified at his court-martial.

Mayo also testified that Hatley instigated the plan and that he and Leahy volunteered to help kill the detainees.

Leahy was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after he admitted to the killing of one of the detainees and shooting another. He was acquitted of murder in the January 2007 incident.

Two more soldiers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and were sentenced to prison last year. Two others had charges of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder dropped this year.

All were with the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. The unit is now part of the Germany-based 172nd Infantry Brigade.

Yes he was one of five. That is from the first link. They were detainees & they were murdered by US soldiers while under their direct control. You can't deny it. This is only one trial. It took 2 minutes to find it. You weren't looking.

Nice. Except that wasn't his defense.

Oh but it was. Here is the quote you posted about it.

Last November, for example, another military jury acquitted Hensley in the same murder of Janabi as well as in the killing of two other Iraqi men south of Baghdad in the early days of Bush's troop "surge." That jury ruled that Hensley was following the approved "rules of engagement," though it did convict him of planting an AK-47 on one victim.

Im not sure that you can read that any other way but " I was just following orders".

You keep saying this. You brought it up and I discounted it because I am talking about the fear of death in prison. I still cannot see how you equate bodies on an open battlefield to fear of death in Gitmo.

Well actually at that point we weren't talking about Gitmo. We were talking about terrorist tactics compared to ours. However, there is a connection between the way people think & the way the detainees are treated because some of those people (innocent or guilty) could become detainees. They know that people have been illegally killed in our prisons. Why would that not cause fear of them dying in a prison as well?

You said the result is the same, regardless of how it occurred.

Yeah, the psychological result is the same, regardless of how it occured.

We test NBC weapons on our own troops? On our own civilians?

Our elected leaders brought convicts before them in public and private spectacles of abuse, torture and eventual death like Saddam and his two sons did?

Our leaders have publicly hunted down members of their own families and executed them because they didn't agree with the leader's political views?

Our leaders have set fire to another sovereign country's natural resources like Saddam did with all the oil wells in an "If I can't have them, nobody will have them" tantrum?

Our country lost a war and yet our leaders told us (lied), the populace, that we actually won it (first Gulf war), and it was accepted because the media is all government controlled with no dissenting opinions allowed?

Your statement completely reinforces to me that you and I have completely different ideas of what the U.S. represents and what Saddam's regime (another difference) stood for. I beg to differ that we do not live in a dictatorship, unlike Iraq before Saddam was removed.

Ok you're right. I shouldn't have said 'just like". It should have been "similar to in their country (Iraq)".

We locked up innocent civilians along with the guilty ones. We tortured, sexually abused them & illegally killed them. Yeah, I'd say that we were similar to Saddam in that respect.

You can't have it both ways, Finity. Either they are all guilty and deserving of some level of interrogation or they are all innocent until they have been through a trial.

I don't have a problem with a trial. I never said I did. I said I had a problem with torture, sexual abuse & murder. Geesh, thats what this whole thread is about.

So they are all guilty until proven innocent? So what theory of law are you working under to come to that conclusion. Not the American one.

"Some level of interrogation" does not mean torture, sexual abuse & murder.

The ones who were abused & died would probably have been a lot happier to get a chance at trial before they were illegally killed.

You keep leading back to actions on the battlefield when our original discussion was in regard to whether or not a person captured and detained has a reasonable expectation of death in one of our prisons.

Due to the actions of the people in charge of in our prisons the detainees do have a reasonable fear of death in our prisons.

The two links you provided I cut you some slack on to see where you were going with it. So far, you haven't posted a link showing where a prisoner died in our prison system where someone in the service of the U.S., civilian or military, was tried, convicted and sentenced or a source that says there is a reasonable expectation of death if captured by the U.S.

Holy crap! I gave two links giving proof of exactly that & you still deny it. Unbelievable!

The rules were and are legal because, yes, the president and Congress says that those ROEs are the legal boundaries to operate under.

Great. I hope you aren't in LE anymore. The idea that torture, abuse & murder are legal because your superiors say it is is pretty freakin scary.

This is the closest that I could find to the question that I posed:

I know that it relates to Florida. I'll use those numbers for my example though. 1,793 crashes, five deaths and 419 injuries, just to LEOs. Extrapolate civilian injuries using those numbers and I believe it to be far more deaths and injuries that those experienced in our detainee prisons.

So there have been 5 officer deaths in five years. I posted a story that had 4 Iraqi detainees murdered in one case, let alone all the others.

So yeah I think its a lot more likely to die in our prison system in Iraq & Afghanistan than during a traffic stop here.

Thanks for proving my point. But there was never really any doubt about that was there?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Finity, I am finished with you in this thread.

Since you assume that I was LE and not military, stationed, living and working out of Baghdad, Iraq, I can't help you. Your assumptions say it all.

I just can't. Good luck and see you around thread.

 

[StarKing]

Oh and by the way serial killers don't recieve the level of psychoanalysis that SOF personnel do.

Unfortunately, neither do politicians...