Oh Boo freakin Hoo!!!

Started by Solar, October 02, 2010, 11:07:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solar


Can we quit prosecuting our own? It's war for Christs sake, the enemy has no problem burning the bodies of our Soldiers, and dragging them through the street, and were worried about a bunch of photos?

"SEATTLE (AP) - Those who have seen the photos say they are grisly: soldiers beside newly killed bodies, decaying corpses and severed fingers.

The dozens of photos, described in interviews and in e-mails and military documents obtained by The Associated Press, were seized by Army investigators and are a crucial part of the case against five soldiers accused of killing three Afghan civilians earlier this year.

Troops allegedly shared the photos by e-mail and thumb drive like electronic trading cards. Now 60 to 70 of them are being kept tightly shielded from the public and even defense attorneys because of fears they could wind up in the news media and provoke anti-American violence.

"We're in a powder-keg situation here," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice and a military law professor at Yale University.

Since the images are not classified, "I think they have to be released if they're going to be evidence in open court in a criminal prosecution," he said.

Maj. Kathleen Turner, a spokeswoman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Seattle, where the accused soldiers are stationed, acknowledged that the images were "highly sensitive, and that's why that protective order was put in place."

She declined to comment further.

At least some of the photos pertain to those killings. Others may have been of insurgents killed in battle, and some may have been taken as part of a military effort to document those killed, according to lawyers involved in the case.

Among the most gruesome allegations is that some of the soldiers kept fingers from the bodies of Afghans they killed as war trophies. The troops also are accused of passing around photos of the dead and of the fingers.

Four members of the unit - two of whom are also charged in the killings - have been accused of wrongfully possessing images of human casualties, and another is charged with trying to impede an investigation by having someone erase incriminating evidence from a computer hard drive."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101001/D9IJ5OU80.html
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ccd2002

Quote from: Solar on October 02, 2010, 11:07:39 AM
Can we quit prosecuting our own? It's war for Christs sake, the enemy has no problem burning the bodies of our Soldiers, and dragging them through the street, and were worried about a bunch of photos?

"SEATTLE (AP) - Those who have seen the photos say they are grisly: soldiers beside newly killed bodies, decaying corpses and severed fingers.

The dozens of photos, described in interviews and in e-mails and military documents obtained by The Associated Press, were seized by Army investigators and are a crucial part of the case against five soldiers accused of killing three Afghan civilians earlier this year.

Troops allegedly shared the photos by e-mail and thumb drive like electronic trading cards. Now 60 to 70 of them are being kept tightly shielded from the public and even defense attorneys because of fears they could wind up in the news media and provoke anti-American violence.

"We're in a powder-keg situation here," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice and a military law professor at Yale University.

Since the images are not classified, "I think they have to be released if they're going to be evidence in open court in a criminal prosecution," he said.

Maj. Kathleen Turner, a spokeswoman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Seattle, where the accused soldiers are stationed, acknowledged that the images were "highly sensitive, and that's why that protective order was put in place."

She declined to comment further.

At least some of the photos pertain to those killings. Others may have been of insurgents killed in battle, and some may have been taken as part of a military effort to document those killed, according to lawyers involved in the case.

Among the most gruesome allegations is that some of the soldiers kept fingers from the bodies of Afghans they killed as war trophies. The troops also are accused of passing around photos of the dead and of the fingers.

Four members of the unit - two of whom are also charged in the killings - have been accused of wrongfully possessing images of human casualties, and another is charged with trying to impede an investigation by having someone erase incriminating evidence from a computer hard drive."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101001/D9IJ5OU80.html


The images are not classified.I just don't see how pictures of that type can be used as evidence against those four.

The whole thing smacks of political correctness.

Solar

Exactly CC, we train these men to kill or be killed, and endure that which most haven't the spine for, then when they take pride in their work, these pantie waist little liberal pricks get all worked up.

It's time to shame these over estrogenated liberals, and kick some ass.
Were at war dammit, and prosecuting them for doing what they were trained to do is nothing short of treason!!!

Screw liberals!!!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

crepe05

This is one of the reasons I despise liberals.  Too many of them are "anti-war".  Who the heck isn't?  Even the military hates war.

However, the military realizes that wars are to be fought to be won.  That's something that liberals don't seem to either realize or want to realize.  They've mounted campaigns against the military since Viet Nam, and I've been waiting for it during this Afghanistan War or Iraq War of War in the Middle East, whatever anyone wants to call it.

Some of the men have had three or four tours.  The C-I-C has to stop telling the enemy what his future plans are.  He and his administration have to stop treating our military like the enemy.  They have to get rid of those stupid Rules of Engagement.  They have to fight to win or else turn tail and slink back to the WH and not come out until the term is ended, hopefully in 2012.

Argh!!!

Solar

Quote from: crepe05 on October 02, 2010, 03:56:00 PM
This is one of the reasons I despise liberals.  Too many of them are "anti-war".  Who the heck isn't?  Even the military hates war.

However, the military realizes that wars are to be fought to be won.  That's something that liberals don't seem to either realize or want to realize.  They've mounted campaigns against the military since Viet Nam, and I've been waiting for it during this Afghanistan War or Iraq War of War in the Middle East, whatever anyone wants to call it.

Some of the men have had three or four tours.  The C-I-C has to stop telling the enemy what his future plans are.  He and his administration have to stop treating our military like the enemy.  They have to get rid of those stupid Rules of Engagement.  They have to fight to win or else turn tail and slink back to the WH and not come out until the term is ended, hopefully in 2012.

Argh!!!
Well said Crepe, I couldn't agree more.
We are losing on average a soldier everyday in Afghanistan, and not one peep from the left.
Remember Code Pinko, and Cindy Sheehan? Where are these groups now, is it because this war now belongs to a fellow leftist?
Yup, war is only wrong if a Conservative is involved.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

BILLY Defiant

The military has always been tight assed about pictures of enemy war dead. I recall several instances during the Viet war where guys were disciplined for photoing dead VC, included was the guy who put a cigarette in a mouth of a severed head and had his pic taken.

Have to admit there is something negative about it.

Billy

Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

arpad

Quote from: crepe05 on October 02, 2010, 03:56:00 PM
This is one of the reasons I despise liberals.  Too many of them are "anti-war".  Who the heck isn't?  Even the military hates war.

However, the military realizes that wars are to be fought to be won.  That's something that liberals don't seem to either realize or want to realize.  They've mounted campaigns against the military since Viet Nam, and I've been waiting for it during this Afghanistan War or Iraq War of War in the Middle East, whatever anyone wants to call it.

Some of the men have had three or four tours.  The C-I-C has to stop telling the enemy what his future plans are.  He and his administration have to stop treating our military like the enemy.  They have to get rid of those stupid Rules of Engagement.  They have to fight to win or else turn tail and slink back to the WH and not come out until the term is ended, hopefully in 2012.

Argh!!!

You should've stopped waiting some years ago.

Probably though your eye-sight isn't quite up to spotting the anti-war movement. Not surprising. It's a microscopic and sickly version of the robust and virulent anti-war movement of the Vietnam War.

The various anti-war types have been wringing their hands about the tepid response their message got when they were still a bit novel. Back during the "Cindy Sheehan" era. College professors would prosletize their classes, even make attendance at anti-war rallies a requirement. Didn't help.

Of course having a left wing president who used them then tossed them aside didn't help their credibility very much either.

The questions to ask though are why he's departing from the left wing playbook with regard to Afghanistan, terrorism and the U.S. military?

Why more troops? Why no civilian trials for terrorists? Why hasn't Guantanamo been closed. Why stepped up drone attacks? Why no attacks on the Pentagon budget? Why, in other words, isn't he acting like so many on this board certianly must've predicted he'd act?

The answer's in Obama's use and casting aside of the anti-war movement.

They were OK for helping him get the nomination since the left's still a big element in the Democratic party. Outside the Democratic party the anti-war movement gained zero traction under Bush despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and by the time the '08 primary campaign was in full swing it was clear to everyone outside the anti-war left that they were a spent force.

The anti-war movement never gained the traction it gained during the Vietnam war and Obama knew it. His instincts, and certainly his polling, told him a distinctly anti-war stance would make him a loser in the general election because the American people were in no mood to listen to the left's lies about the military. So against his inclination Obama was prevented from treating the military with the disdain all lefties feel for the military.

crepe05

Quote from: arpad on October 02, 2010, 06:49:23 PM
You should've stopped waiting some years ago.

Probably though your eye-sight isn't quite up to spotting the anti-war movement. Not surprising. It's a microscopic and sickly version of the robust and virulent anti-war movement of the Vietnam War.

The various anti-war types have been wringing their hands about the tepid response their message got when they were still a bit novel. Back during the "Cindy Sheehan" era. College professors would prosletize their classes, even make attendance at anti-war rallies a requirement. Didn't help.

Of course having a left wing president who used them then tossed them aside didn't help their credibility very much either.

The questions to ask though are why he's departing from the left wing playbook with regard to Afghanistan, terrorism and the U.S. military?

Why more troops? Why no civilian trials for terrorists? Why hasn't Guantanamo been closed. Why stepped up drone attacks? Why no attacks on the Pentagon budget? Why, in other words, isn't he acting like so many on this board certianly must've predicted he'd act?

The answer's in Obama's use and casting aside of the anti-war movement.

They were OK for helping him get the nomination since the left's still a big element in the Democratic party. Outside the Democratic party the anti-war movement gained zero traction under Bush despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and by the time the '08 primary campaign was in full swing it was clear to everyone outside the anti-war left that they were a spent force.

The anti-war movement never gained the traction it gained during the Vietnam war and Obama knew it. His instincts, and certainly his polling, told him a distinctly anti-war stance would make him a loser in the general election because the American people were in no mood to listen to the left's lies about the military. So against his inclination Obama was prevented from treating the military with the disdain all lefties feel for the military.
Quote from: arpad on October 02, 2010, 06:49:23 PM
You should've stopped waiting some years ago.

Probably though your eye-sight isn't quite up to spotting the anti-war movement. Not surprising. It's a microscopic and sickly version of the robust and virulent anti-war movement of the Vietnam War.

The various anti-war types have been wringing their hands about the tepid response their message got when they were still a bit novel. Back during the "Cindy Sheehan" era. College professors would prosletize their classes, even make attendance at anti-war rallies a requirement. Didn't help.

Of course having a left wing president who used them then tossed them aside didn't help their credibility very much either.

The questions to ask though are why he's departing from the left wing playbook with regard to Afghanistan, terrorism and the U.S. military?

Why more troops? Why no civilian trials for terrorists? Why hasn't Guantanamo been closed. Why stepped up drone attacks? Why no attacks on the Pentagon budget? Why, in other words, isn't he acting like so many on this board certianly must've predicted he'd act?

The answer's in Obama's use and casting aside of the anti-war movement.

They were OK for helping him get the nomination since the left's still a big element in the Democratic party. Outside the Democratic party the anti-war movement gained zero traction under Bush despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and by the time the '08 primary campaign was in full swing it was clear to everyone outside the anti-war left that they were a spent force.

The anti-war movement never gained the traction it gained during the Vietnam war and Obama knew it. His instincts, and certainly his polling, told him a distinctly anti-war stance would make him a loser in the general election because the American people were in no mood to listen to the left's lies about the military. So against his inclination Obama was prevented from treating the military with the disdain all lefties feel for the military.

I must have given you the wrong impression.  I do that sometimes.  It's a gift, I guess.

I've always been aware that the anti-war movement was alive and quite well.  It just hasn't been up in numbers or as volitile as in the past, at least as I saw it.  I figure that's because of the events of 9-11.  Those events united most of the nation, and the anti-war people had to fade into the woodwork along with the other cockroaches.  However, people are beginning to not forget 9-11, but to let it remain more in the background of their memories.  We have a far left POTUS who has picked a far left administration, and who has a liberal dem House and Senate.   The setting is good for the far left anti-war people to come out from the woodwork and start doing their screaming and yelling and telling of lies regarding the military and its function.

I think this election is very important in a lot of ways, including our stance toward the military and its function.

Solar

Quote from: crepe05 on October 03, 2010, 03:43:11 AM
I must have given you the wrong impression.  I do that sometimes.  It's a gift, I guess.

I've always been aware that the anti-war movement was alive and quite well.  It just hasn't been up in numbers or as volitile as in the past, at least as I saw it.  I figure that's because of the events of 9-11.  Those events united most of the nation, and the anti-war people had to fade into the woodwork along with the other cockroaches.  However, people are beginning to not forget 9-11, but to let it remain more in the background of their memories.  We have a far left POTUS who has picked a far left administration, and who has a liberal dem House and Senate.   The setting is good for the far left anti-war people to come out from the woodwork and start doing their screaming and yelling and telling of lies regarding the military and its function.

I think this election is very important in a lot of ways, including our stance toward the military and its function.
Actually Crepe, the lack of war protests really never had anything to do with Patriotism, it had everything to do with Dims culpability of the war.

95% 0f the Dims voted for the Iraq war by funding it.
Cindy Sheehan and her band of Pinko misfits were somewhat of an anomaly, and for a very good reason, the Dims kept their protest machine at bay, seeing how they shared responsibility.

Back in the 60s, the majority of protests against the Nam war, were organized by commies, the same commies that are now in power.
They finally managed to infiltrate the highest office and offices in the land.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

crepe05

Quote from: Solar on October 03, 2010, 07:06:44 AM
Actually Crepe, the lack of war protests really never had anything to do with Patriotism, it had everything to do with Dims culpability of the war.

95% 0f the Dims voted for the Iraq war by funding it.
Cindy Sheehan and her band of Pinko misfits were somewhat of an anomaly, and for a very good reason, the Dims kept their protest machine at bay, seeing how they shared responsibility.

Back in the 60s, the majority of protests against the Nam war, were organized by commies, the same commies that are now in power.
They finally managed to infiltrate the highest office and offices in the land.

I don't recall saying anything about patriotism or the lack of.    In my mind, being anti-war can bring a person to being anti-military.  I don't think either one means a person is or isn't patriotic.  There was a lot of active anti-militarism during the Viet Nam War that I don't yet see happening now.   I'm not going to say that it won't develop in the future because it certainly can if this current war drags on like the Viet Nam war without us winning.

During the Viet Nam War I think the far left was taken over by the Communists, but the far left dems didn't leave the dem party.  They remained to do their havoc within that party.  The election of Obama has hastened the  far left reaching their goal of changing the way our nation is governed.

I believe the next year or two are very important in deciding if we remain a functioning Republic.  We have become much too centralized for my taste.  The power needs to be given back to the people and to the states and taken from the feds.

taxed

Quote from: crepe05 on October 03, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
I don't recall saying anything about patriotism or the lack of.    In my mind, being anti-war can bring a person to being anti-military.  I don't think either one means a person is or isn't patriotic.  There was a lot of active anti-militarism during the Viet Nam War that I don't yet see happening now.   I'm not going to say that it won't develop in the future because it certainly can if this current war drags on like the Viet Nam war without us winning.

During the Viet Nam War I think the far left was taken over by the Communists, but the far left dems didn't leave the dem party.  They remained to do their havoc within that party.  The election of Obama has hastened the  far left reaching their goal of changing the way our nation is governed.

I believe the next year or two are very important in deciding if we remain a functioning Republic.  We have become much too centralized for my taste.  The power needs to be given back to the people and to the states and taken from the feds.

If you are anti-military to the very military that protects and guards you, then you are not patriotic. 
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solars Toy

Quote from: crepe05 on October 03, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
I don't recall saying anything about patriotism or the lack of.    In my mind, being anti-war can bring a person to being anti-military.  I don't think either one means a person is or isn't patriotic.  There was a lot of active anti-militarism during the Viet Nam War that I don't yet see happening now.   I'm not going to say that it won't develop in the future because it certainly can if this current war drags on like the Viet Nam war without us winning.

During the Viet Nam War I think the far left was taken over by the Communists, but the far left dems didn't leave the dem party.  They remained to do their havoc within that party.  The election of Obama has hastened the  far left reaching their goal of changing the way our nation is governed.

I believe the next year or two are very important in deciding if we remain a functioning Republic.  We have become much too centralized for my taste.  The power needs to be given back to the people and to the states and taken from the feds.

I agree Crepe.  What happened to the will of the people.  I don't believe that the Feds should be dictating my every move not should they have the right to take and spend my money on "programs" I don't support. 8)
I pray, not wish because I have a God not a Genie.

arpad

Quote from: crepe05 on October 03, 2010, 03:43:11 AM
I must have given you the wrong impression.  I do that sometimes.  It's a gift, I guess.

I've always been aware that the anti-war movement was alive and quite well.  It just hasn't been up in numbers or as volitile as in the past, at least as I saw it.  I figure that's because of the events of 9-11.  Those events united most of the nation, and the anti-war people had to fade into the woodwork along with the other cockroaches.  However, people are beginning to not forget 9-11, but to let it remain more in the background of their memories.  We have a far left POTUS who has picked a far left administration, and who has a liberal dem House and Senate.   The setting is good for the far left anti-war people to come out from the woodwork and start doing their screaming and yelling and telling of lies regarding the military and its function.

I think this election is very important in a lot of ways, including our stance toward the military and its function.

Yeah well, you don't have a corner on the market of leaving an inaccurate impression.

I'm saying the anti-war movement isn't alive and well. That it's a pale imitation of the anti-war movement of the Vietnam war and that's not just because of 9/11. The entire left edge of the political spectrum has been losing vitality and momentum for a long time.

The anti-war movement is the latest to subgroup of the left to be laid low by public indifference to their message but they're not the only bunch. Lefties whose primary issue is welfare got their wings clipped in 1995. The anti-gun lefties got their ears pinned back in 2000 and the again in 2002. I'd say the anti-war left was injured by public indifference to their message during the Bush years and the coup de grace was delivered by Obama via his use and disposal of the anti-war left.

Obama made it clear that all they were good for was beating other Democrats over the head. Once he had the nomination sewed up it was "hasta la vist, baby" to the anti-war types. I think maybe the best way to destroy a constituency is to make it clear that they're as disposable as toilet paper and them treat them the way you treat toilet paper. That's what Obama did and the smell lingers.

Indy

Bet they don't have any bodies of civilians with severed heads in those photos. >:(

AmericanFlyer

Let's face it.  The bottom line is that............

LIBERALS ARE A BUNCH OF PANTY WAIST PUSSIES!

That's why I'm not worried about the liberals when this country falls apart.  The rest of us will roll over them like "shit through a goose".