Last time i checked, in the US military you are guilty until proven innocent....And military regulations are generally harsher than those of the democracies they are there to protect. So i dont see your point on any level.Kmarion wrote:
Charged..Ikarti wrote:
The U.S military has charged four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division _ Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard _ in the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.
Talk about animals.
Have you thrown out their right to a trial? Can you imagine if everyone nation went around dragging innocent people with trucks and cutting their heads off because we thought someone else was possibly guilty of a crime. I like the comparison. Obviously I don't know if they are guilty or not but I live in a society that believes they have at least the right to have their defense heard.
The assumption of guilt everyone makes here is sad. Whether they are guilty or not.
Last time you checked what? If your foot was in your mouth? What's your source here, I gotta hear this one. Just please quote some part of the UCMJ that says what you have stated.golgoj4 wrote:
Last time i checked, in the US military you are guilty until proven innocent....
Oh wait I'll do it for you to prove your wrong.
So maybe you should update your "checking".The UCMJ wrote:
(c) Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them -
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
You do talk a lot of rubbish. "There is already a clause allowing for more extreme forms of interrogation if you are in a '24' type of situation", not that is allowed under article 3 of the Geneva convention there isn't.golgoj4 wrote:
Sorry, thats unacceptable. Or do you normally just surrender when a fight looks tough. Sorry if it sounds harsh but I grow weary of my so called fellow Americans who are so quick to shed what America stands for and cower behind so called security. There is already a clause allowing for more extreme forms of interrogation if you are in a '24' type of situation. Anything beyond that is well...useless and punitive. Maybe if the govt had a coherent plan for Iraq before going in, it wouldn't be the cluster-fuck it is. But destroying the essence of what America stands to fix your fuck-ups is unacceptable.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
I think the "Geneva Convention" rules of law are acceptable laws in conventional wars. However, as you see in the news, this is not a conventional war. This is not a war of factions and or countries with boundaries.
It's time to "adapt" rules of law that are appropriate to "current" military conditions - this is not a mechanized military like wars of the past.
I do not nor will not condone torture however, I strongly believe the rules need to be "adapted" by those who are the professionals and who are dealing with the harsh realities...
Name, rank, and Jihad number is not acceptable since each terrorist is connected in a network - if these terrorist are willing to kill themselves so freely then why is "making them feel uncomfortable", but still be alive, unacceptable!
Kaboom.
Its nice to see that so many people support this adventure in the desert. As of Friday it was reported torture of Iraqis is past the level it was at during saddams reign...Mission Accomplished.
You watch too much TV.
Where did I say that the military didn't follow the guilty until proven innocent ideology? I was stating how I felt about the way things are. People need to learn to concentrate a little more before they post in a debate forum.golgoj4 wrote:
Last time i checked, in the US military you are guilty until proven innocent....And military regulations are generally harsher than those of the democracies they are there to protect. So i dont see your point on any level.Kmarion wrote:
Charged..Ikarti wrote:
The U.S military has charged four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division _ Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard _ in the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.
Talk about animals.
Have you thrown out their right to a trial? Can you imagine if everyone nation went around dragging innocent people with trucks and cutting their heads off because we thought someone else was possibly guilty of a crime. I like the comparison. Obviously I don't know if they are guilty or not but I live in a society that believes they have at least the right to have their defense heard.
The assumption of guilt everyone makes here is sad. Whether they are guilty or not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You didn't say that. You'd have been wrong to say that as well, because the military follow the presumed innocent until proven guilty in the same way that most of the worlds legal systems do.Kmarion wrote:
Where did I say that the military didn't follow the guilty until proven innocent ideology? I was stating how I felt about the way things are. People need to learn to concentrate a little more before they post in a debate forum.golgoj4 wrote:
Last time i checked, in the US military you are guilty until proven innocent....And military regulations are generally harsher than those of the democracies they are there to protect. So i dont see your point on any level.Kmarion wrote:
Charged..
Have you thrown out their right to a trial? Can you imagine if everyone nation went around dragging innocent people with trucks and cutting their heads off because we thought someone else was possibly guilty of a crime. I like the comparison. Obviously I don't know if they are guilty or not but I live in a society that believes they have at least the right to have their defense heard.
The assumption of guilt everyone makes here is sad. Whether they are guilty or not.
I think the actual way it works is there is no presumption of guilt or innocence. (If what I found is accurate) I was curious but it doesn't change how I feel about it.
In the performance of its Article 66(c), UCMJ, functions, the Court of Criminal Appeals applies neither a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt. The court must assess the evidence in the entire record without regard to the findings reached by the trial court, and it must make its own independent determination as to whether the evidence constitutes proof of each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast to the lay members who serve on courts-martial, the mature and experienced judges who serve on the Courts of Criminal Appeals are presumed to know and apply the law correctly without the necessity of a rhetorical reminder of the "presumption of innocence."
In addition to reminding the fact-finder to not employ a presumption of guilt, the presumption of innocence also reflects allocation of the burden of proof.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccin … ington.htm
In the performance of its Article 66(c), UCMJ, functions, the Court of Criminal Appeals applies neither a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt. The court must assess the evidence in the entire record without regard to the findings reached by the trial court, and it must make its own independent determination as to whether the evidence constitutes proof of each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast to the lay members who serve on courts-martial, the mature and experienced judges who serve on the Courts of Criminal Appeals are presumed to know and apply the law correctly without the necessity of a rhetorical reminder of the "presumption of innocence."
In addition to reminding the fact-finder to not employ a presumption of guilt, the presumption of innocence also reflects allocation of the burden of proof.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccin … ington.htm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/475?OpenDocument
I think you will find that this applies
Thanks bijzondere
I think you will find that this applies
Thanks bijzondere
Look up a few posts.Kmarion wrote:
I think the actual way it works is there is no presumption of guilt or innocence. (If what I found is accurate) I was curious but it doesn't change how I feel about it.
In the performance of its Article 66(c), UCMJ, functions, the Court of Criminal Appeals applies neither a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt. The court must assess the evidence in the entire record without regard to the findings reached by the trial court, and it must make its own independent determination as to whether the evidence constitutes proof of each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast to the lay members who serve on courts-martial, the mature and experienced judges who serve on the Courts of Criminal Appeals are presumed to know and apply the law correctly without the necessity of a rhetorical reminder of the "presumption of innocence."
In addition to reminding the fact-finder to not employ a presumption of guilt, the presumption of innocence also reflects allocation of the burden of proof.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccin … ington.htm
AlbertWesker[RE] pointed that out and I've checked up on it a bit and it seems to be the case. I would have been very surprised if it wasn't.UCMJ wrote:
Before a vote is taken on the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them -
(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;
(3) that, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and
(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Article 66(c) is probably only applies in the court of appeals then.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"The U.S military has charged four soldiers "Ikarti wrote:
The U.S military has charged four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division _ Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard _ in the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.
Talk about animals.
you seemed to have missed the keywords of your own post, we police our own, and don't fuck around when we do, sometimes, in the case of Abu-Ghraib, we go too far and hang scapegoats to the whim of public opinion
this makes the news because it is the exception, not the rule
What's truly funny is how in our military, you actually lose many of your constitutional rights, yet you're sworn to protect them. Such ironicalization indeed!
Do you understand which rights you lose and why?IRONCHEF wrote:
What's truly funny is how in our military, you actually lose many of your constitutional rights, yet you're sworn to protect them. Such ironicalization indeed!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Generally for good reason though. It's not like rights are being taken from soldiers, they give them away to become soldiers. What's wrong with that?IRONCHEF wrote:
What's truly funny is how in our military, you actually lose many of your constitutional rights, yet you're sworn to protect them. Such ironicalization indeed!
Yah, for more info on the UCMJ please refer toKmarion wrote:
Article 66(c) is probably only applies in the court of appeals then.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/10c47.doc