If that's your assertion, then ulike Lyndie England, you have absolutely no evidence that these Marines are guilty, or that they tampered with evidence...which is my point, partially anyway.
Then, you thought Lyndie Engand might be innocent in spite of the photos?
You're absolutely 100% right, I personally have no evidence that these Marines are guilty. However, as the article clearly states, someone does:
"The investigation found that a company logbook of the unit involved had been tampered with and that an incriminating video taken by an aerial drone the day of the killings was not given to investigators until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, intervened, the officials said.
Those findings, contained in a long report that was completed last month but not made public, go beyond what has been previously reported about the case. It has been known that Marines who carried out the killings made false statements to investigators and that senior officers were criticized for not being more aggressive in investigating the case, in which most or all of the Iraqis who were killed were civilians. But this is the first time details about possible concealment or destruction of evidence have been disclosed."
Let's review though:
In the opening post you said this:
Just wondering if we're expected to "stay the course," regarding our support for the troops or if we can stop to realize that some of what is happening to our troops is the direct result of their actions.
Then, in the same post, you went on to cite a New York Times article that accuses the Marines of tampering with evidence, with the obvious implication that such tampering denotes guilt.
What else would it imply? What other reason besides hiding guilt would anyone have for tampering with evidence?
To which I replied:
There's nothing in this article that demonstrates the Marines tampered with evidence.
To which, once again I reply;
"The investigation found that a company logbook of the unit involved had been tampered with and that
an incriminating video taken by an aerial drone the day of the killings was not given to investigators until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, intervened, the officials said.
You then responded by saying, and I quote: "My expectations are based on real-life wartime experience and the knowledge that all wars will have their human-rights abuses..."
Then you deny that there are war crimes or human rights abuses in every war?
To which I responded:
Yes, and I'm to believe that your statement in the opening post and the article are mutually exclusive....
By saying, in your statement [in the opening post] that "...what is happening to our troops is the direct result of their actions..." you are making an accusation of guilt concerning the Haditha affair.
If you say so. Having written it myself, I think I meant that the criminal actions of SOME soldiers might mean we should be a little more selective in which soldiers we support. Certainly these men should be afforded the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a military court, but I know that the stresses of combat can push the criminally-inclined over the edge and there can be no denying that idiotic policies combined with war crimes like these do NOT make the normal soldier's job easier. I'm actually commending the grunts who spoke up and the Officers who didn't allow the incriminating video to clandestinely disappear.
If you're trying to tell me that this sentiment is not based upon the New York Times article, but rather, your own experience and knowledge, then tell me how such groundless accusations are compatible with with this statement of yours:
I hold every bit of respect and sympathy for our troops and have always spoken (or written) with their behalf in mind.."
Not difficult by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply stating that we should spend our time and support on the multitude of troops who do their duty honorably and represent their country well in the manner they treat non-combatants. You can't win their hearts & minds by imprisoning their citizens . . .
"—by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers—were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. "
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
____________
OR raping their daughters, then burning her body and killing her family . . .
"w war crimes investigation into five American soldiers, alleged to have raped and murdered a young Iraqi woman and killed three members of her family in their home.
Yesterday's investigation is the fourth alleged war crime in Iraq to come to light in a matter of weeks, putting the Pentagon's legal system to its most stringent test since the Vietnam war.
In the latest suspected war crime, it is believed the woman's body was burnt, and that a child was killed along with two other Iraqi adults in the family's home.
The alleged rape and murders are believed to have taken place in the town of Mahmoudiya, about 18 miles south of Baghdad several months ago. The events were brought to the attention of the authorities on June 23 by two soldiers who saw blood on their comrades' clothing and heard them talking about the incident."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1810326,00.html
__________
Fortunately, most American soldiers would have also turned in their comrades had they heard them discussing something this heinous.
Unadulterated Bullsh*t
A ten year old could tell you that [unsupported] accusations of murder and obstruction of justice are much more serious than this trite speculation you offer above.
I think I've supported my ASSERTIONS well. This isn't a court of law, and I'm not accusing anyone in anyway that would make a difference. I'm just a disabled-veteran exercising my right to free speech.
