It has long been said that the phrase “military justice” is an oxymoron. This old saying was confirmed this week by the outcome of a trial of an American soldier in Iraq accused of murder. The events are not disputed by the soldier. He walked up to the back of a truck, and found a 16-year old Iraqi boy there. The boy, a non-combatant, had suffered abdominal wounds in as the result of an American assault upon the area, and needed medical help very badly. Instead of providing that medical help, or getting someone else who could, the soldier shot the boy to death.
The soldier justified his murder by saying that he was “putting him out of his misery”. Beware, all miserable Iraqis, of American soldiers who believe that it is better to kill wounded civilians than to provide them with medical treatment.
The military sentenced the soldier to a mere three years in prison for this murder. Outside the military system of justice, there are Americans serving 25-years sentences in prison for nothing more than possessing a few ounces of marijuana.
The irony that is back here in the United States, Republicans pursuing what they call a “right to life” agenda zealously prosecute anyone attempting to engage in mercy killing. The Republican faithful regards euthanasia as a mortal sin, and so refuses to allow a husband to remove his wife, Terry Schiavo, who has been brain dead for years, from the life support equipment that keeps her artificially alive.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is serving a 25-year sentence for administering a painless medication to help a patient with excruciating chronic pain to die. That patient wanted to die, and said so for a long time, even signing a document to confirm his wishes before the procedure.
Yet, when an American soldier coldly calculates the murder of a wounded Iraqi teenager and shoots him at close range with his rifle, the military deems that a three-year sentence is all that is required. The military deemed the murder “mercy”.
That conclusion can only make sense under the strange ideological twist that allows Republicans to declare that an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a foreign country, killing over 100,000 of its inhabitants and creating a persistent, lawless violent chaos there is an act of noble mercy.
War is liberation. Murder is mercy. Black is white. Up is down.
Which point are you making more, Woodie?
That jack kevorkian, who was tried in Oakland County Michigan, is now in a “red state”. Michigan, and I believe Oakland County specifically, were “blue” states. And that’s where Kevork was tried. So are you now arguing that Michigan is a “red” state?
Or are you against plea-bargaining? Or do you think he plea-bargained it to a “misdemeanor”? Or do you think marijuana trafficing laws should have shorter sentences? Or are you saying that a “violent chaos” did not exist in Iraq until the US created it? So you are arguing then that the mass killing of Kurds by Saddam was not either violent nor chaotic?
Or are you simplying saying that the soldier should have received a longer prison term, in addition to his dishonorable discharge? Is that it? I agree with that feeling. Your “facts” as usual, seem to be a bit off.
Debbie, you brought a lot of baggage to this item.
Nowhere did “Woodie” mention red or blue states.
Please explain how plea bargaining is relevant here.
How is the writer implying “violent chaos” did not exist pre-U.S. occupation?
It’s disingenuous, at best, for you to pretend there AREN’T people serving long sentences for marijuana possession (i.e. of amounts that could hardly be considered “trafficking”), which is clearly what the writer was referring to in his comparison.
What is up with this “Saddam did it therefore it’s okay for our soldiers to do it” argument flaw being so popular?
The same people always go on about how they’re so much BETTER than Saddam was, too.
Wrong is WRONG; doesn’t matter if someone else did it too, it’s still WRONG. Admittedly, a lot of pressures can be put on people through conformity, deindividuation, the agency effect, and so on, for people to forget their responsibilities, but since there apparently wasn’t a crowd cheering the soldier on to shoot the kid, that doesn’t really apply here, and neither should it in court.
Two wrongs make a right. Didn’t you get the memo?
Kids, let’s learn to read a bit more carefully!
to address jenna:
Wood didn’t use the term red/blue, however, he did state:”The irony that is back here in the United States, Republicans pursuing what they call a “right to life†agenda zealously prosecute anyone attempting to engage in mercy killing. “, and then he brings up Kevork’s imprisonment. So therefore he implies that the Repubs are responsible for Kevork. You really disagree he was implying that?
Your 2nd point: The soldier (from what I read) plea-bargained the case to avoid the death penalty. (“Having pleaded guilty a day earlier under a plea bargain that averted the risk of a death sentence, “….Reuters) It’s common in plea bargain situation to give a much lesser sentence in return for the voluntary plea of guilty, I assume you know.
Your third point. This is what the writer said; he did not merely imply it; he said Republicans ideology was” creating a persistent, lawless violent chaos there.” He didn’t say “failed to correct, or continued”; He said we created it. That’s the key difference.
Finally, in response to Jenna’s last point. I don’t want to give a flippant answer. There are probably exceptions, but most of the more famous cases that have made the news circuit refer to people who were present with, or otherwise associated with, real drug dealers. (i.e. the trafficers) Some of them personally were indeed not caryying much on their person, or were even in the slight mistake/wrong-place-wrong-time/wrong-associates category. But I think what most of them were charged and convicted of was trafficking, not merely posession for personal use, wrongly or not.
They usually received lesser sentences than the “real” dealer, because the plea bargain was used by the “real” dealer (here’s plea bargain again) to reduce their sentence. You know that the “innocent” person didn’t have enough good “dirt” to turn in to prosecutors to warrant them receiving the same plea deal. So the sentence they received for “trafficking” is what’s holding them in jail. Certainly a by-product of over-zealous prosecution, but it would not even be a possibility without the laws and mandatory minimum sentences for “dealing”. I don’t think it’s accurate to say they were convicted of “posessing” small amounts of MJ. Exceptions are possible of course, but most of the cases I’ve read have followed this trend.
And to triple-harry:
Your issue,”What is up with this “Saddam did it therefore it’s okay for our soldiers to do itâ€Â.
Where exactly did I say it was OK? The wood-person stated that we were responsible for “creating” the chaos there, and I merely asked if he somehow felt that Saddam’s actions prior to our entrance there were not either violent and chaotic. Nowhere did I try to justify this soldier’s action, nor say that it is not violent or chaotic there still. Is it worse, you may rather argue? That’s of course a different statement from what Wood said. And you might ask the Kurds and some of the other people he killed if they agree with you. I don’t advocate the killings of innocents either, but until they start acting responsibly there and respect their own government and their own guard, let alone ours, they will inflict this chaos upon themselves.
to MattD: ditto the answer given to HareTrin.
_deb
Misspoke above in my response to Jenna’s last point.
I meant to type “They usually receive *greater* sentences than the ..”
Sorry,I typed too fast -Debbie
Debbie,
It’s not like the Governor or the State Legislature puts Jack Kevorkian on trial.
Jim Marcinkowski, a lead prosecutor in the Kevorkian cases, is a registered Republican. The other lead Kevorkian prosecutor, Richard Thompson, is also registered Republican.
As prosecutors, they’re responsible for, um, you know, the prosecution.
Ah, nice point. You did some research! Good for you. While Oakland County has it’s Democratic pockets, it’s still primarily Republican.
Although this year, the Chief Prosecuting Attorney,David Gorcyca , did at least get a strong showing by his Democrat opponent, 57 to 42%. The County Executive, who sets the tone for all county government, was only seriously opposed by a Green candidate.
you’re quick sometimes. you might try sharing some of that with your boss, P. wood.
Thanks for the compliment, Debbie. But Peregrin’s not my boss — we’re all in this together. And I think Peregrin’s post is right on.
We do research all the time. Check out Irregular News for a new manifestation of this.
Kinda reminds us old folks of another war—”We had to destroy the village in order to save it”….anybody remember THAT one?
Where did I say I was talking to you?
Besides. America undoubtedly started the American violence against Iraqis.
And I can’t seem to find where you explain why the Iraqis should respect a government for the sake of it…
Respect should be earnt, not given. Americans (along with many people around the world) should learn that, too. I, personally, refuse to respect people purely because of their status, age, views, religion, country, ethnicity, or so on. Greater differences within cultures than between and such.
Sorry, meant to cut that back to “…explain why PEOPLE should respect a government…”…
I don’t respect is that important in that way, as it is. My respect for life and the enjoyment of life will get me to help others, regardless of whether or not they respect anyone, let alone me.
Debbie,
Your comments have been consistently misleading, and often about the very post that is right here on the page to see. For example, you claim that I write that Republican ideology has created a peristent lawless violent chaos in Iraq.
In fact, the complete statement that I wrote is:
“That conclusion can only make sense under the strange ideological twist that allows Republicans to declare that an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a foreign country, killing over 100,000 of its inhabitants and creating a persistent, lawless violent chaos there is an act of noble mercy.”
If you care to read at something less than a quick browsing speed, you’ll see that what this sentence actually says is:
- The conclusion [that the murder was mercy"] can only be reached under the Republicans’ strange ideological twist.
- That twist declares that the invasion and occupation, which created a persistent lawless violent chaos in Iraq, is an act of noble mercy.
Nowhere did I claim that the persistent, lawless chaos created by the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is the only persistent, lawless chaos ever to have existed in Iraq. That would be absurd, as the area has a history of thousands of years of nation states. The ancient epic Gilgamesh records the reign of a king who creates a lawless violent chaos that persists for some time.
What I said was that the invasion and occupation by the Americans created A persistent lawless violent chaos in Iraq. I don’t see how anyone can argue against that.
Before we invaded, there was the rule of law. It was a nasty rule of law, but it was nonetheless a rule of law. The nation of Iraq was not in chaos before America invaded. The Baathist regime had a very firm hand on the country.
Now, after the invasion and with the occupation continuing, there is no real sovereignty for Iraq, and the Iraqi police cannot control their own cities. Iraq is lawless.
The violence in Iraq is devastating. Do you deny that too, Debbie?
Most of all, the situation in Iraq is chaotic. Do you deny that?
The combination of these conditions existed after the invasion by American soldiers, not before. Furthermore, they have persisted since the time of the invasion. In fact, they’ve gotten worse. Therefore, these conditions are persistent.
Your pose of outrage at my statement seems to rest on nothing more than umbrage at the fact that I dare to criticize the Republican Party and its reckless failure of a war.
Most fascinating to me is that you spend so much time criticizing me for questioning Republican policies, but don’t seem to want to spend much time criticizing a soldier who was caught murdering a 16 year-old noncombatant because he felt too lazy to treat the boy’s wounds. Talk about weird priorities!
As for myself, I think that murder is a much more serious offense than questioning Republican policies. But that’s me. I guess I’m just a silly liberal for thinking such things.
“War is liberation. Murder is mercy. Black is white. Up is down.”
How about; right is wrong?
Anyway, do you hear anything in America about how the English are doing? I mean, even though we got the slightly more peaceful area, we are having a LOT less “chaos” going on, as I understand. We aren’t actually torturing them, either… Kind of proves that it is possible, at least.
P.Wood:
I didn’t disagree with your position, that the soldier did a deplorable act, and should have received a longer sentence.
Let’s ask you to make a bold statement. What sentence should he have received, in your opinion? Death? Life? which?
He plea bargained his case and sentence. I asked you if you are against that concept, or merely what he received. As far as I know, plea bargaining is not merely a Republican concept. As far as calling it a “misdemeanor”, do most soldiers get dishonorably discharged and 3 years in prison for “misdemeanors”?
As far as what you said regarding violent chaos and who created it.
That’s certainly debatable, and you’re entitled to your opinion.
“Before we invaded, there was the rule of law. It was a nasty rule of law, but it was nonetheless a rule of law. The nation of Iraq was not in chaos before America invaded. The Baathist regime had a very firm hand on the country.”
I guess chaos is in the eyes of the beholder perhaps. When they are they dead eyes buried in numerous mass graves, they might have the opinion that their lives were both violent and chaotic. But that’s just my opinion. Perhaps you feel that mass murdering and bulldozer graves does not constitute chaos. Perhaps you feel that stealing money meant for the populace’s food and diverting it for your own purposes is not chaotic to the starving millions who were already existing there before we entered. OK, you’re entitled to believe that.
The “chaos” that we “created” there is because we do not attempt to control the country with the same iron hand of Saddam, by gassing thousands, bulldozing them into graves, etc. Perhaps that’s what you’re suggesting we do to return them to their prior “non-chaotic” state. Great idea! That would sure keep those pesky law-breakers in check.
Finally, you say “Your pose of outrage at my statement seems to rest on nothing more than umbrage at the fact that I dare to criticize the Republican Party and its reckless failure of a war.”
What I originally said, if you read it, was:”Or are you simplying saying that the soldier should have received a longer prison term, in addition to his dishonorable discharge? Is that it? I agree with that feeling.”
So I agreed with you that the soldier should have received a longer sentence. If that’s your point, stick with it. Comparing it to marijuana laws, Kevorkian’s trial is just plain nonsense. Why don’t you also compare the soldier’s fate to the tax breaks too? It might just tie into your priorities, which are probably more about Republican bashing rather than a true concern for the wounded Iraqi citizen shot by the soldier.
-Debbie
Debbie,
You ought to pay more attention to the meaning of words. The word “chaotic” does not just refer to things that are really bad. Chaos is disorder. Iraq under the Baathists was horrible in many ways, but it was not especially chaotic, at least in comparison to what’s going on there now. Murdering people en masse and then shoving their corpses in a mass grave is the worst kind of order.
By the way, did you know that the American military dug out mass graves after its invasion of Fallujah and dumped the bodies of the huge numbers of Iraqis it killed there in those mass graves? Yes, that was the same operation where the American soldier shot and killed a wounded, unarmed prisoner in the head. That was the same military operation where American helicopters were observed shooting entire fleeing families in the back, and Iraqi fathers were forced to bury their little children in their back yards after their houses came under American attack.
Why are you so eager to defend these horrible things that America is doing in Iraq?
As for that soldier’s sentence, I’m not in the place to give a specific sentence, but I’d say something over ten years would have been a lot more appropriate. I don’t see why a plea bargain was at all necessary. There was no dearth of evidence for what the soldier did. There were witnesses. There is no larger criminal case that I know of for which the soldier’s testimony was needed. I’m for plea bargaining when there is a prosecutorial strategic reason for allowing a plea bargain. There was not in the case of this soldier.
The point of the article I have written is not to elevate domestic mercy killers to an honorable pedastal. Rather, it is to point out the extreme imbalance in the way that justice is delivered here in the United States and the way that it is being delivered overseas by our military.
Is that point completely lost on you?
“That was the same military operation where American helicopters were observed shooting entire fleeing families in the back, ”
Please post the pictures of this or some other objective proof. I would like to see it.
“Why are you so eager to defend these horrible things that America is doing in Iraq?”
Please refrain from stating that I am eagerly defending American actions, either good or bad, in Iraq. I did specifically not defend it. I think it is an extremely cheesy tactic to issue false words for me.
If you think overseas is the only area where justice has made mistakes, you are wrong. This soldier’s case is a data point. You disagreed with the length of his sentence. I agree with you, and did from the outset. Your arguments comparing it to marijuana laws is just absurd, that’s all.
If you want to divorce brutality from a chaotic life, that’s your choice of spin. If I had lived in a country where I didn’t know if I would receive food day to day, because the money for it was being stolen, I would call that chaotic. If I lived in a place that had numerous vicious gangs because Saddam released over 200,000 criminals on the streets in the year 2000, I would call that chaotic.
After 1991, where secular education collapsed, illiteracy rose, and the Iraqi middle class was destroyed, it is well acknowledged that this “chaotic” situation promoted the Iraqi religious revivial.
What I would agree with you on is that there is definitely a different kind of chaos there now. I’m not mincing words, but it is far more accurate to imply we made them trade one type of violent chaos for another, not to imply that violent chaos didn’t already exist there. Living under a strong dictator does not preclude your life there being chaotic.
If you think the soldier should have received seven more years in prison than he did, I wouldn’t disagree with that suggestion either.
Mercy killing in the US has always existed. I know of several close family members who had parents dying of cancer. As their condition became extremely grave, the doctor would simply “bump up” the morphine level until it “assisted” their deaths. This was done quietly and no one talked about it. Kevorkian made it into a political statement (for debatable reasons) and it was that which ended him up in jail. He’s basically a political prisoner, not a victim of false justice.
Your point isn’t lost on me, just weakly supported.
love, Debbie
I interpret the circumstances differently than P. Wood.
From my readings of the news reports, a bunch of soldiers tried to pull this kid out of the burning wreckage, but were unable to get through the flames. The kid was burning alive. What would you do if someone was burning alive and you couldn’t save him? Would you consider shooting the kid in the head out of mercy to end his suffering? I would consider it. I don’t know if I would do it, because I haven’t been there. But I would, agonizingly, consider it.
That circumstance is very different than what P. Wood callously suggests is “a soldier who was caught murdering a 16 year-old noncombatant because he felt too lazy to treat the boy’s wounds.”
You may not approve of the war, P. Wood. I don’t. But try to have a bit of empathy for someone who, for whatever reasons, ends up in a situation in which whatever decision they make will have bad consequences.
On a stylistic note, you seem stubborn. I get the sense that you’ve staked out this position for whatever reason and you won’t abandon it because you’re stubborn.
One man’s stubborn is another man’s steadfast.
Scratch that.
One person’s stubborn is another person’s steadfast.
Actually, anonymous, the 16 year-old boy was not in the flames. The flames were in another part of the vehicle. The boy was not burning alive. The soldier could have gotten the boy out with too much trouble, but decided that the boy’s wounds made the effort not worth the trouble.
What makes it the job of some young soldier to decide whether a 16 year-old’s life is worth living? I’ve heard nothing to suggest that the boy was in any way begging to be killed.
What’s completely ignored in most of the discussion of this case is that the Iraqi boy was not part of the fighting in the first place, but that he was injured by an American attack upon his residential neighborhood. I certainly hope that foreign fighters never enter the United States with such an aggressive, no holds barred attitude, and I hope that American civilians never get shot by foreign troops who decide that pleas of help should be met with murder. You’re right, anonymous, I am stubborn in that belief.
On a stylistic note, I find it extremely strange that so many people are spending so much time defending this murder by a soldier who basically got away with it with nothing more than the next step up from a slap on the wrist. The soldier certainly won’t be spending any time in a prison like the brutal ones that his comrades set up in Iraq. He’ll be comfortable, well-fed and treated decently, and only three years after committing murder, he’ll be a completely free man. He’ll have the freedom to start a successful career and have a family life in the most wealthy nation on Earth. The Iraqi boy for whom he didn’t want to bother providing medical care won’t get the chance at any of that. He’s been “liberated”. Permanently.
So, yes, I’m stubborn in my reaction. When I see that a murderer is getting away with a short, easy three-year sentence, my reaction is not to sympathize with that murderer and obsessively try to come up with excuses for his behavior, trying to see it from his side. He got away with murder, so why does he need my sympathy? No, my reaction continues to be to wonder how our government can continue to place such small value on human life as to treat murder of Iraqi children as a less serious offense than the possession of a few ounces of marijuana.
I’ll continue to be persistent in bringing up these questions, anonymous, because my government is very persistent in fighting a war in which incidents like this are happening almost every day.
Better to be stubborn in the face of grave injustice than to be a wishy-washy observer who just shrugs his shoulders and doesn’t bother to do anything about it.
“He walked up to the back of a truck, and found a 16-year old Iraqi boy there. The boy, a non-combatant, had suffered abdominal wounds in as the result of an American assault upon the area, and needed medical help very badly. Instead of providing that medical help, or getting someone else who could, the soldier shot the boy to death.”
Either the way anon. told it or the above ‘clarification’ from P. Wood in the prior post, it sure looks like his original posting on this topic took it out of context by leaving out important facts. Not that I have changed my position on it because of these other facts, but I prefer to hear the WHOLE truth, and make up my mind on my own. Not to have the facts sliced up by Peregrin and let him decide for me what’s important or relevant to read. Nice to know you can believe your sources. I’ll keep checking around.
nonsense! there’s nothing Peregrin said that isn’t true, and he didn’t take it out of context.
The soldier shot the boy to dath. The boy was not on fire. The boy had abdominal wounds as a result of the American attack, and needed medical help. The soldier shot the boy to death.
Those are the facts, “LaKesha”. The soldier committed murder & got only 3 years.
Republicans will make excuses for anything! Jesus Christ!
Wow Patty,
I didn’t make ANY excuses for the soldier. Cannot you read?
If I only read the first thing he wrote in his article, you don’t think I would have a different view after reading the other guy’s post and then his reply? Of course you wouldn’t, you Christ-lover, you.
Now, I’ll say something that you CAN say is an excuse. Feel free. I didn’t see the boy’s injuries, I don’t know if you did either. I certainly have heard of cases in battle where someone is so badly injured (abdomen blown wide open) that you cannot help them and they will not live more than a couple of excrutiating minutes. Do you believe that these types of injuries do not occur?
So you know that the boy’s condition was saveable, and that he was NOT in unbearable pain from his appearance to you? He also must have spoken good English and asked the soldier for help? Oh, he didn’t? Then it is possible that a merciful thing to do in a situation where DEATH IS UNAVOIDABLE, AND COMING SOON is to end that obvious pain (groaning and moaning doesn’t need English)? Can you deny that this was the case with this boy? Do you have the facts on his medical condition or how long he could have been expected to live with even the BEST emergency medical care? Do you? Do you know if there was ANY humanly-possible way he could be saved?
Is it ever possible in your world to end suffering if death is unavoidable and the pain is obviously unbearable? You enjoy watching people dying and suffering? I haven’t seen his condition reported or the prognosis, but perhaps that’s why his shooting and killing was given extenuating circumstances. The soldier may have made an extremely poor decision, but one that he convinced them was made in the sense of mercy. Oh but they are all there because they enjoy killing, I forgot.
As far as him being a non-combatant, it was reported to them that this garbage truck was dropping bombs. That’s never happened there before, has it? No apparent young ‘civilians’ have ever done anything bad, have they?
Dehumanisation is something American soldiers are good at; chances are the kid was shot because he was part of “the enemy”.
I don’t know for certain, no; like I don’t know for certain that this war will leave behind a lot of American-Iraqis through rape, but this is war. Conformity, agency effect, dehumanisation and so on. It’s easy to get carried away with deindividuation being thrown around like that.
OH MY GOD! LaKesha…That has got to be the best spin I’ve read in a long time. Have you ever considered giving your resume to Karl Rove. The evil Jedi master may just take on a Padawon with skills such as yours.
Wow! Just after denying that she is making excuses for the murderer, LaKesha makes an excuse AGAIN!
Without seeing the wounds, or knowing anything about them, LaKesha PRESUMES that they would have let the boy live only a few minutes more!
Where is the supposed morality of the Republicans? They go around talking about “moral issues, moral issues”, and then they go ahead and justify murder. This is disgusting.
Basic moral value: It’s wrong to go invade somebody else’s country, injure unarmed, peaceful 16 year old boys in attacks on their home towns, then go and shoot them to death instead of providing them with medical care.
Get it through your head: It’s WRONG. MORALLY WRONG. That’s spelled M-O-R-A-L-L-Y-W-R-O-N-G.
So stop making excuses for it, Republicans!
Read more carefully, lemon-head.
I didn’t make ANY “excuses” PRIOR to that last post. That’s where you are wrongly reading again. (you et.al) Now, I left that last post to give you something really to rant about, not claiming I made excuses up where I didn’t. Of course, as far as presuming the conditions of this crime, you presume just as much as my hypothetical post’s questions do. You just refuse to admit it. You also presume that the 16 year old was “peaceful”. Where do you get the basis for that? The reports were that the truck he was riding in had been tossing bombs. So he tossed the last one and so now is considered “unarmed”? You presume just as much as my hypothetical post’s questions did, again.
Isn’t it nice when someone unpolitically correct like Lemon wanders along and says what’s on our minds?
Okay, LeKesha; my turn.
It was a wounded and currently unarmed 16 year old kid vs an armed American soldier who owned the vehicle and had back up.
Mercy killing isn’t particularly legal anyway, so I really don’t like that excuse, especially when peopl in nasty wars aren’t likely to feel “mercy” before the pressures put upon them to fight.
NO! I’m serious LaKesha, You’re good…Very good! Now could you do a spin on the holocaust? Would you keep to the effect of it being more of a mercy killing or would you go more to the rout of it being in open shut case of self-defense. I mean common! There had to be about 1200 to 1 ratio of Jews to Nazis in those camps at any one time.
Aaacccckkk…sorry…a little vomit came up…happens sometimes when I talk to certain people…I’m ok now…
NOW! How about that story?
Um, LaKesha, there’s NO EVIDENCE that the boy was involved in any hostilities at all. This is a BOY we’re talking about here, and you keep on making excuses for his murder in his own neighborhood like it was a crime for him to be there and like the Americans have the right to go around shooting up residential neighborhoods in foreign countries whenever they want to!
LaKesha, have you no sense of moralilty? Why are the Republicans continually going down the slippery slope into immorality? It disgusts me the way that Republicans keep on encouraging immoral behavior, like MURDER.
MURDER MURDER. That’s what it is when you walk up to someone, whether or not they are actively defending THEIR HOMES or are just INNOCENT bystanders, and KILL THEM because giving medical treatment would just be too much work.
This wasn’t just a murder. It was a lazy murder. It was immoral. Why won’t you stand up against immorality?
I am so sick of all these Republicans refusing to defend traditional American family values – like NOT KILLING CHILDREN.
Pro-life ends at birth, I guess.
Wait! Wait! I have a better idea for you LaKesha. I think Saddam is looking for a good lawyer to represent him…you would be perfect. You could honestly look the jury in the eye and with a tear running down you face you can tell a story of how Saddam was just doing the will of the people. Well…who am I to say how you could spin that one…you’re the master, not I.
So glad to amuse you all. You’re so easy to get riled! The sad part is, I was accused of defending this act long before I ever made the last sarcastic post. And of course you all jump on that like I was serious. Get thinking, get off the bandwagon and actually think!
My God! That was brilliant! Spew a load of inhumanly repulsive post, back it up your repugnant thoughts with the same disgusting vigor and then when you relies that everybody can’t believe you could be so brutally mean, you retract your statement by saying it was all one big joke! BRILLIANT! You are better than I could have ever imagined! Keep up the good work. A person without a conscious and a natural propensity to be spin any horrendous story into a positive BUT also have a back-up incase they are discovered will surly find fame & fortune in this “attitude is everything, substance is nothing†entertainment/law industries.
I feel like I’m witnessing the Phoenix taking flight for the first time! sniff…sniff..
LaKesha, I would be willing to concede that your first post did not explicitly excuse the soldier’s actions, but I certainly read it as calling into question the accuracy of Peregrin Wood’s original posting. “Nice to know you can believe your sources,” you wrote. More than a whiff of sarcasm there, I think, especially since the next sentence is, “I’ll keep checking around.”
Right. Okay. So if you make it clear that you doubt the accuracy and completeness of the story, why would it not be reasonable that you doubt the conclusions drawn from it – in other words that you are minimizing or excusing the soldier’s actions – or are expecting to do so once the “whole story” is known? That was not my initial interpretation of your post, but I think the implication is there.
But THEN of course you present a whole raft of excuses and SAY they are excuses, and that we are free to take them as such. Then later you say they were sarcastic, and you didn’t even mean what you wrote. So was it just a little sociological experiment to gauge the hotheadedness of the liberals, then? Or perhaps a public service – just trying to get us thinking for ourselves, as though our objections to war and the evil actions that go along with it are just a lot of unthinking pacifist blather?
If you’re going start splashing sarcasm around in a forum where your words have to stand on their own, with no tone of voice or body language to clarify, it’s probably safest to make your intentions clear.
On the other hand, maybe you’re just stirring up trouble for fun. That’s my bet. If so, by all means obfuscate as much as possible.
Here’s a thought I came up with all by myself, from living in the world and observing it. Violence is never a solution; it just begets more violence. This is true of the physical reality of armed conflict, and of the verbal violence we experience every day from our fellow Americans on the right. If people on here get a little petulant, maybe it’s because we’re tired of being baited, berated, and insulted.
Matt,
Of course I call into question P. Wood’s original posting’s accuracy. He leaves out important details. He is know for hyperbole in prior occasions, many of you have called him on that. Another poster gave different details, which Wood then responded to with a slightly “different” spin to it than what he originally wrote. He’s a good spin doctor too, prone to over-generalizing and certainly highly prejudiced against American soldiers. That was obvious from the feedback he got on a opinion piece he wrote about a month ago.
I think it’s very fair to call into question a story written from his point of view. I’d like more facts, real facts backed up with something other than rhetoric.
So now you’re trying to spin my serious doubts on Wood’s story’s credibility into MY justification for the soldier’s actions? How off the wall do you want to get???? If you don’t think Wood’s post merits some doubts as to accuracy, I’d say you’re living in dreamland. I didn’t condone the soldier’s actions once, but was accused of it several times by more overzealous Wood supporters.
Now, to make an opposite point of ridiculousness, I lead it off with:
“Now, I’ll say something that you CAN say is an excuse. Feel free.”
And you don’t get it??? You are unclear that this is a parody of Wood’s own style?? I had higher expectations than that.
It’s no psychological experiment; just an honest slam on what I am taking to be writings presented without justification. Many of you saw what Wood wrote a month ago. It seems to be fair to at least be thoughfully considering his accuracy, if not outright questioning of it. I’d like to see the real story on this, presented with a clear head that serious matters like this truly deserve.
-LaKesha
If you want hard news devoid of opinion, this seems like a really strange place to go looking for it, if it exists at all.
I’m really sick of the word “spin.” I am trying to approach this with all the honesty and self-awareness that I can muster, in whatever imperfect measure that amounts to. I have my prejudices and biases like everyone else, but I am not “spinning” anything. As I wrote previously, I saw how others concluded you were willing to excuse the soldier’s actions, though I did not initially reach that conclusion myself.
But you then wrote, “Now, I’ll say something that you CAN say is an excuse. Feel free.â€Â
Whatever your expectations were, there is no facial expression or tone of voice to help with interpretation in text that you post online. If you say, to paraphrase, I wasn’t excusing it before, but now I will, followed by 4 paragraphs of excuses, what cause do I have to believe you are just joshin’? Did you really expect people to deconstruct what you wrote, compare and contrast with Peregrin Wood’s style, and determine that it was a parody? When a hot button issue like this is involved? Better luck next time.
I do see your point, though. Really, I do. It’s never bad to question, IMHO, which is why I haven’t weighed in on the specifics of the actual “mercy killing.” I didn’t find anything in what Peregrin Wood wrote that was in conflict with what I DID know, but I also didn’t have time or inclination to go do research.
Till now. Let’s deal with these supposedly critical omitted details.
First please go here and here, or take the following summary on faith (but I’m sure you would never do that).
The troops received tips about dump trucks planting bombs.
The truck in question was not a dump truck, but a garbage truck, and the people on it were not insurgents but teenagers picking up trash. They were almost done with their work and had just passed through a security check point.
The troops fired on the truck. Seven Iraqis were killed. Eight were wounded.
Medics were present and were treating the wounded.
Let me repeat that. Medics were present and were treating the wounded.
Three soldiers – Cardenas Alban, Erick Anderson, and Johnny Horne – shot the victim in question, Qassim Hassan, 16.
The soldiers claim that the 16-year old was moaning in agony and they shot him to put him out of his misery.
To quote the LA Times story:
Hassan’s cousin, Majid, on the other hand, says that Qassim was unconscious, burned, and struggling to breathe, but hadn’t been shot. It was Majid’s brother, not Qassim Hassan, who was trapped in the burning truck.
LA Times again:
Even members of the unit can’t seem to agree what happened. Some say it was a mercy killing, but others were horrified.
Horne did indeed plea bargain in return for testimony against his two comrades in arms. His sentence could have been as much as 10 years.
LA Times once more:
But
Please let me know if you think I’ve misinterpreted.
So. Let’s ask a couple of key questions.
If medics were THERE and treating the other wounded, what right did the soldiers have to determine the extent of the boy’s injuries and put him out of his misery?
Why didn’t the prosecutors use the testimony of any Iraqis, who would probably have testified that the soldiers treated the wounded boy “as if he were an animal struck by a car,” when appeals for leniency from the soldier’s children and parents WERE allowed? Is this not a little one-sided?
When you get right down to the heart of the matter, what bearing does all this minute detail actually have on Peregrin’s original point? A “mercy killing” committed stateside under far less brutal circumstances than this one can get you a far longer sentence. Lots of things done stateside, things which harm no one, can get you a far longer sentence.
There. I think we’ve covered the WHOLE story. I hope I’ve kept a clear head. There are open-ended questions to be asked, so that we’re all thinking, not just bandwagon-hopping.
Are you happy now, LaKesha?
nice job Matt. I don’t have time to check everything you’ve reported, but you seem to be doing it in sincerity. I think you’ve raised the important points in this. I really still don’t understand how anyone can truthfully confuse questioning Wood as a source of information with defending the soldier’s actions. If you’ve read his previous stuff, you know how anti-soldier he is. When presented with the earlier, additional, “conflicting” statements, I did say “Not that I have changed my position on it because of these other facts, but I prefer to hear the WHOLE truth”. That statement doesn’t in any way imply a conflict with the limited facts that Wood originally supplied in the story.
If I went over the top on my reply to make a point, it did accomplish something. It got the truth out, and continues to expose Wood as being loose with his “facts”.
You just proved this again: Wood:”There is no larger criminal case that I know of for which the soldier’s testimony was needed. I’m for plea bargaining when there is a prosecutorial strategic reason for allowing a plea bargain. There was not in the case of this soldier. ”
You supplied: “Horne did indeed plea bargain in return for testimony against his two comrades in arms. His sentence could have been as much as 10 years.”
10 years is the figure P. Wood himself thought would be appropriate!”…ten years would have been a lot more appropriate… ”
So according to you, the guy plea-bargained it down by offering testimony against his fellow soldiers.
So in terms of the justice points:
1.) Wood is for plea bargaining in principle.
2.) He’d have expected on the order of 10 years.
3.) The soldier could have got that.
4.) He plea bargained in exchange for testimony against more soldiers.
5.) As a result, the soldier got less.
This seems to be EXACTLY what happens in our justice system at home all the time. It’s exactly what happens in the marijuana cases that he references, to the people that offer up the information. They get lesser sentences. If the other two soldiers get also get lesser sentences, then that would be different. If you compare “mercy killing” (ala Kevork) to this, who did Jack offer up testimony against? His case does not compare, if you’ve supplied the true facts.
I’ll say it once again for the “overly-zealous”. I’m not condoning the soldier’s actions. There. But if Wood’s point is to say the justice system is unbalanced, he needs to be consistent. He says he is for plea-bargaining. He wanted a 10 year sentence. According to you, that’s exactly what this guy would have received, had he not plea-bargained in exchange for testimony. When the other guys whom he’s testifying against get their sentences, let’s hear from Wood again, if necessary.
But if you can’t see that his main point is now shot full of holes by the more complete information you’ve just given, you truly have the blinders on in regard to his writing.
LaKesha, you’ve lost a great deal of credibility here by writing a lot of angry, violent things, and then saying that you were just kidding. I’ll know better than to respond to your comments in the future.
However, you ought to know that I think a sentence of a minimum of 10 years ought to be the sentence that is the RESULT of plea bargain in a case such as this. Three years is too much leniency for a murder, especially when there are other witnesses available that can corroborate the prosecution’s case.
In the future, when you’re not just joking around, can you put an advisory on the front of your comments? Something like “This time, I’m serious” would be appropriate, I think.
Peregrin:
Your comments deserve an honest reply.
You certainly should not be criticizing others for writing “angry, violent things”. I read your November post on the soldiers, and that was full of angry things.
I believe it was so bad, that it prompted one of your own staff,
J. Matthew to “officially” publish a counter-piece.
One of his commments:”Peregrin’s posting is both factually wrong and strategically wrongheaded. ”
So, in my mind, the credibility department is one where you have not earned the right yet to be working in.
In this case, you are not the prosecutor. I’m sure that they often use the “credibility” of the various witnesses to decide how strong their case is. The soldier testifying against his own comrades obviously makes an extremely solid case. You reported he had been wounded in the abdomen, assumingly by the gunfire. His cousin, as reported by MattD. above, say he wasn’t even shot. Which is it? There is obvious disagreement on the facts. Why do you so quickly assume that the soldier’s story are lies? Or do you?
I may agree again with you that his sentence is still too weak. Even now when you’ve modified the original point you made and stated that you would only accept ten years AFTER a plea bargain deal. But comparing what he received to Jack Kevork, when there was no plea deal at all in his case is again a factual and logical error.
Credibility is definitely something earned. If you think you’ve earned it based on the repeated changes, backsteps and missing information you’ve provided, please stand up for that, don’t waste my time trying to take an obvious negative parody of your style and twist it.
And what have you earned LaKesha? Lets take what we do know. There was a young, unarmed & injured boy involved that was shot dead while in the custody of the U/S. military. We have military personnel, NOT disputing the fact that he killed the boy. Personally, I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories because for the simple fact that statistically they are harder to prove and are less likely to accrue. In other words I look for the most obvious answer and THEN branch out. But not you, you took that story and spun it around into a mercy killing that any one of us would have done. You took the lack of detail of his wound to assume that death was unavoidable and immediate death was preferable. To deny him that death would be considered cruel. Again…that was good! You turned back on us. You made some here loose sight of the obvious lack of humanity and actually accused US of being inhuman…good!
But lets look at this from a clearer point. Lets assume that this is not a war and the little boy was in YOUR neighborhood and somebody that you knew well. Lets say that he was in a car accident and his abdomen was ripped out and he was in excruciating pain. Here’s my question to you LaKesha, You have a gun in one hand and a cell phone in the other…which do you choose? Wait! That’s not the same thing, the situation isn’t fair. Isn’t itâ€Â? We are in Iraq not to destroy but to “liberateâ€Â, least ye forget. And just because this little boy is ½ a world away, in a combat zone, dose not give you the right to take away his humanity by “destroying†him due to his pain as you would a dog! But we have laws and rules limiting me here in the states, even if I did want to put my neighbors little boy out of his misery, I couldn’t for fear of prosecution. Well, obviously the rules still apply for the American soldiers in Iraq but he decided to pull the trigger anyways.
So, in other words, it’s sort of a rhetorical question. You know as well as I know that the most obvious answer is that he didn’t consider this boy as human. Weather or not he saw this as a mercy killing or if he was just pissed, he didn’t see this boy as human enough to even try to save him…or leave him so somebody else could try. The question here is not asking what lead up to the decision to pull the trigger but rather why did he pull the trigger. Why would you condone him to pull the trigger? Do you feel as Bush dose that we, as Americans, are in infallible? War, itself razes the margin for error that any body could slip on. This is why war is a bad thing and not a tool for liberation.
This administration has done all it could to dehumanize these people. “These Muslims hate us because of who we are and what we represent.†“It’s in their bible that they will kill every non-Muslim†“They hate Western freedom and philosophies†“They believe they will get 70 virgins in heaven if they die killing an American.†I constantly hear this from the WWF republican crowd and I suspect that you believe it as well. So why not kill the little boy…he will only grow up to want to kill more Americans…right? I guess, if he was in the wrong place (and that is the wrong place), in the wrong time (again now is the worst time to be an Iraqi), and an American solider saved him, he may grow up to be a vocal supporter of the United States…but we will never know because he was killed. Not murdered…you murder humans…you kill animals.
To clarify something…The soldier’s sentence could have been as much as 10 years under the terms of the plea bargain. In other words, he pled guilty to reduce his sentence to 10 years or fewer, and got 3.
LA Times again:
As Peregrin Wood writes above, “I think a sentence of a minimum of 10 years ought to be the sentence that is the RESULT of plea bargain in a case such as this.” Ten years was the maximum available in this case, WITH the plea bargain, and the soldier got far less.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer before. It was late, and though I re-read my post several times before posting it, I never perceived a potential for misinterpretation of that part of it. I see now how the misinterpretation occurred, however.
To revise your list above:
1.) Wood is for plea bargaining in principle.
2.) He’d have expected on the order of 10 years.
3.) The soldier could have gotten much more than that.
4.) He plea bargained in exchange for testimony against more soldiers, for a maximum sentence of 10 years.
5.) The soldier got 3 years, far less than the maximum under the plea agreement.
As for giving weight to soldiers’ testimony vs. Iraqis’ testimony, we can argue the point all day, but it’s really kind of moot in the case, since no Iraqis were called to testify in the trial or sentencing hearing. Whether the soldier, Johnny Horne, got 3 years or 10, he will be released and be able to rejoin his family eventually. If he serves his time stateside, I presume his family will be able to visit him while he is incarcerated. On the other hand, Qassim Hassan’s family will mourn him for 3 years, and 10, and 20. I don’t think that was entirely irrelevant to the sentencing, but the military disagreed, I guess.
One more time around on credibility:
I still haven’t seen Peregrin Wood’s support for this:
“That was the same military operation where American helicopters were observed shooting entire fleeing families in the back..”
oh, and Pauly, don’t use “spin”, Matt doesn’t like it.
I don’t know anything about an incident with a helicopter. I’m not going to go looking for it. Others here can google as well as I can.
However, in the LA Times article I’ve already mentioned, there is this:
But that sounds like something different.
Use whatever words you like. I was just stating my opinion, and I specifically meant that I dislike being accused of “spin.”
Was there some buried message in that comment, or am I just getting too sensitive?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5572
http://www.w3ar.com/a.php?k=415
http://www.sundayherald.com/42229
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1220750%2C00.html
I think the “That was the same military operation where American helicopters were observed shooting entire fleeing families in the back..†statement was referring to a wedding that was massacred by US troops. I have several articles sighted above. I can’t believe you don’t remember this or haven’t herd of this. Hell! Just type in Iraq + massacre + wedding + military and see how many postings you get!
“Bad people have parties too,” said Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt. When asked what happened. How’s that for spin Debbie?
Pauly
[Skim reads a few of Pauly's links]
Oh… Gods… This is barbaric, how can ANYONE claim America’s in any way “advanced” when you can’t even seem to comprehend the basics of acceptance of other cultures, how can you DO THAT to people?!?
You people disgust me, how can you allow something like this to continue, how can you support ANY “leader” who would allow ANYTHING like this to happen?!?
I don’t care how many of his other views you agree with, how can you put anything to do with “small government” and such picky crap as ABOVE this whole culture and its people?!?
Kevin and others; seriously, how can you value masses of human life as being below government?!?
Thanks for digging up the sources, Pauly. I do remember hearing about it, now that I see the articles. If that was the event being referred to, it doesn’t appear to me that it is actually connected with the “mercy killing.” One was in May, the other in August.
Debbie and LaKesha, if you would like to take this as evidence that Peregrin Wood was trying to sway opinion in some way (unless or until he decides to clarify what incident he might have meant or whether he was mistaken or whatever) that is your prerogative.
However, as HareTrinity suggests, all this flap about who wrote what or how seems kind of trivial when set against two incidents (just two out of however many) where American troops fired upon and killed unarmed civilians, including children. The same day or months apart, does it really make a difference?
If these events don’t make it crystal clear what a tragic disaster this war is, I suspect nothing will.
(And yes, any number of incidents could be furnished in which Iraqis did evil things to American citizens, or citizens of other nations. Violence begets violence begets violence. My conclusion remains the same: it is a tragic, disastrous mistake for us to be there.)
Um, Debbie, read the original article here on Irregular Times about the invasion of Fallujah, and you’ll read that the source that you’re so loudly demanding has already been supplied by Irregular Times. An Associated Press photographer witnessed and reported the scene. He saw a family of 5 gunned down, shot in the backs while they were trying to get out of the way of the American destruction of the city. What, do you think the Associated Press is a liberal wacko organization too, now?
And LaKesha, clear this up for me: Are you still just kidding about everything that you’re saying, or are you serious now, and if you say you’re serious now, how do we know that you’re now kidding?