Former Marine heads to trial in civilian courts for alledged war crimes

[Ducky]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405164,00.html

Man this is scary. Its one thing to be courtmartialed by those who understand the nature of combat, but to have to face a jury of civilians who may not understand many military concepts such as lawful vs unlawful orders and chain of command is extremely scary.

 

[scoolbubba]

great. explaining oneself to civilians who weren't there.

i don't know what to think of this guy's innocence or guilt, but it's not a matter for civilian courts to decide. The decision to go about this in such a manner sets a terrible precedent for the rest of us who wear a uniform.

 

[DSL1990]

great. explaining oneself to civilians who weren't there.

i don't know what to think of this guy's innocence or guilt, but it's not a matter for civilian courts to decide. The decision to go about this in such a manner sets a terrible precedent for the rest of us who wear a uniform.

if we can try unlawful combatants in a military court, why couldn't they just do the same with contractors and others? couldn't they pass a law or something that would allow it? i bet it would be better than having a civilian court deal with it. in a civilian court, you wont have a jury of your "peers"...

 

[D_Rob]

Do civilian courts have authority to prosecute something that happened thousands of miles away not in the US?

 

[nittany03]

I agree with the idea, but not its execution. The law should have given the military authority to return the person to active duty in order to court-martial them. IIRC, they can do this already with those who are retired or in the IRR.

 

[picklesuit]

Monday Morning War Quarterbacking

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405164,00.html

I don't really agree with the way this is happening. While the allegations, if proven true, are serious and need to be addressed; I don't think the way the law is being applied is correct. I think if there is a problem in the military, it should be addressed by the military. Opening up soldiers for civil prosecution sets a bad precedent.

Sometimes, in war, shit happens. I am not speaking from any firsthand warrior experience, but from what my father and other veterans have told me. In Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan...sometimes, when people shoot at you, shit happens. If said shit is found to be criminal, or someone had doubts about it, they should bring it up then...not years later when they are trying to get a job and decide to unload their guilt in a security interview. WTF?:icon_rage

In my opinion, if this comes to a prosecution, it will bring about a gaggle of lawsuits and claims from pissed off collateral damage and overzealous Senators trying to make our troops look like they are "terrorizing kids and children, you know, women"

Just raging here, that's all...

 

[Crowbar]

Merged.

 

[HercDriver]

Well, if he is unable to be brought back to active duty because his military service was completed (to include IRR), it seems that there was no other choice than to arrest and try him in a civilian court. As a military member I would like to face a court martial for actions done in the service, but it seems that there is nothing the military could do with this particular case.

 

[DSL1990]

Well, if he is unable to be brought back to active duty because his military service was completed (to include IRR), it seems that there was no other choice than to arrest and try him in a civilian court. As a military member I would like to face a court martial for actions done in the service, but it seems that there is nothing the military could do with this particular case.

seems so unfair. whether he is really guilty or not, how can a court in the US properly understand what happened in a warzone? more importantly, how can a jury understand it? i think he would get a fairer hearing in a military court for the reasons others mentioned.

hasn't it been true in history that when a country is at war, things that happen in that country are heard by military tribunal? i thought that was how it was in WW2. in world war 2, did anyone doing anything in the warzone ever get taken to court in the US?

 

[Picaroon]

Well, if he is unable to be brought back to active duty because his military service was completed (to include IRR), it seems that there was no other choice than to arrest and try him in a civilian court. As a military member I would like to face a court martial for actions done in the service, but it seems that there is nothing the military could do with this particular case.

Then perhaps, in a way, a statute of limitations has been reached? Can't try him in a military court... then maybe it should just be too late.

I don't know. It's just that taking a veteran who risked his life for this country and taking away his job and the life he built for himself years after an alleged wartime event doesn't sit well with me. There's no easy solution here, I guess.

 

[picklesuit]

Merged.

Thanks, sorry about that.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Not Guilty!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_re_us/marines_fallujah;_ylt=AhLck7gtXxUR9vhlUbdPCGhH2ocA


I see this as a victory for the guys on the ground that cannot afford to make slow decisions.

 

[Zissou]

Awesome news! I'm also quite proud of the two who did not co-operate.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Awesome news! I'm also quite proud of the two who did not co-operate.

That took some balls. The moral of the story is to never compromise your ethics and sell out because it is the easy thing to do. I am glad this jury got it right. I can only hope for favorable outcomes for the other two that are being held in contempt.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Had Nazario been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, he could have faced more than 10 years in prison.

You get a fraction of a second to make a decision which, if incorrect, could easily lead to the death of yourself, someone around you, or a civilian. The courts then take months and years to determine if it was correct or not.

"I think you don't know what goes on in combat until you are in combat," [a jury member] said.

Sounds like the jury saw it the same way we do - they aren't his "peers" in this matter and therefore don't fully understand the situation.