In fact one of them is about to be elected President. Born in Panama Canal Zone. Citizen. Deal with it.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Well, that settles that. At least for those who respect the rule of law.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

My faith in our justice system is restored.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand the whole situation was handled so poorly that a conviction would seem to be an outrageous miscarriage of justice. On the other hand it really looks like he's guilty as sin and it's sad that most likely nobody at all will be help responsible for this.

Here is why this should have never come to trial, and a big reason he was acquitted:

For months before Falluja was invaded, The US and functioning Iraqi governments stated on day x, that the city would be invaded. All occupants of the city were to be out of the city by day x. If you were in the city after day x, you were declared hostile, and would be shot on sight. If you were in the city after day x, you were to be considered an enemy combatant, and the normal laws would not be extended to you.

On day x, the assault did indeed commence.

The guys that were shot in this instance were NOT civilians, they were captured while armed and fighting.


My opinions: By all rights, they should have and could have been shot on sight. I would have instructed my Marines to shoot them instead of capturing them, since we were going block by block, and gathering intell was not that important. They had their chance to clear out, but instead chose to stand and fight. They paid the price for that decision.

thanks for posting this, once again goober shows his ass , i am wondering is goober Keith Oberman????

unfortunatley most only respect the rule of politics

It's none of the civilian courts damn business what happens in a war zone.Those judges and procecuters should lose their jobs for trying to some leftist nonsense like this.The accused should have fled to some other state and challenged the civilian courts authority to try a military case. Now because of this nonsense some leftist retard with some power is going to be harassing vets.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

H HA HA!!!! Good joke. Now, please, quit posting BS. You are getting many seperate things all mashed up here, and it almost looks intentional to stoke the flames.

Don't you mean " ALLEGED" crime?

Are you even trying to be serious?

The US Constitution protects American military members, regardless of where they are in the world.

I'll now allow you to draw on your vast experience in the US military to formulate your response.

This case, if not thrown out, is the kind of case that will make it to the Supreme Court. Even the most liberal of courts is likely to see the danger in allowing this kind of prosecution...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I am still mystified as to the jurisdiction of a US federal court in this case. Take for example Lt. William Calley; he was tried by courts martial.

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

And what happened? He served 3(?) years of house arrest and no one else was ever convicted, most of the people involved never charged because they had already left the military. For upwards of 400 murdered civilians. Seems an outrageous miscarriage of justice to me.

My question is about jurisdiction in such cases, not about the punishment. There are articles in the UCMJ that address crimes committed by soldiers serving in combat zones overseas. I am curious how a federal court in CA has jurisdiction in such a case.

BTW the reason some of the soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre were not charged had nothing to do with them no longer being in the military; there's no statute of limitations in such a scenario that a person, having committed a crime while serving in the arme forces can no longer be prosecuted under the UCMJ just because he is no longer an active duty service member. 25 officers and enlisted men were charged besides Calley but to my knowledge he was the only one convicted. 4 other officers deemed heavily responsible for the coverup were already dead by the time courts martial began.

Personally I agree with you that Calley and others deserved more severe punishment than was given. One day they all will be judged by higher authority.

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

You're right of course, I responded hastily and I didn't mean to come off as confrontational. I'd agree, it's odd that someone thought that a CA court would have jurisdiction in such a case. I guess I just have issues with a system that could let one guy off so lightly and so many others off completely.