The first Military Court Martial trial - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 01-10-2005, 08:36 PM

...has begun for the Abu Ghraib abuses. Spc. Graner is the first to go to trial. Those Court Martialed prior to him pled guilty and accepted plea bargins.

This one could become a little interesting as Spc. Graner is claiming he was "doing his job, following orders and being praised for it."

IRQ0 · 01-10-2005, 09:32 PM

I too am looking forward to the out come even though it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial. He will get railroaded. The government will not allow the real story to get out as it would make them look really bad and they want people to think they aren't. I do think we will get glimpses of the truth but it will not go very far if anywhere and will be down played.

Honeyslut · 01-10-2005, 10:47 PM

Oh the land of the free

pornguy · 01-10-2005, 10:56 PM

The land of the tree's and the home of the slaves.

KRL · 01-10-2005, 10:57 PM

Did you hear there is a new cable channel launching called The Military Channel?

theking · 01-10-2005, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRQ0

I too am looking forward to the out come even though it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial. He will get railroaded. The government will not allow the real story to get out as it would make them look really bad and they want people to think they aren't. I do think we will get glimpses of the truth but it will not go very far if anywhere and will be down played.

He will get a fair trial...this is a Military Court. He is not being tried by the government.

Mr Pheer · 01-11-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

Did you hear there is a new cable channel launching called The Military Channel?

Actually its the Discovery Wings Channel just being reformatted.

Mr Pheer · 01-11-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

He will get a fair trial...this is a Military Court. He is not being tried by the government.

They are going to stick him with following orders that were not legal. And you know the drill on that. Just because you followed an order, does not mean the order was legal and therefor your actions were not legal either.

Pete-KT · 01-11-2005, 12:37 AM

good she should do the same to them as they did to the prisioners

Pete

Webby · 01-11-2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking
He will get a fair trial...this is a Military Court. He is not being tried by the government.

Who manages/engages the military? The government.

Who directly controls the military? The Secretary of Defence.

Who has been/is dictating legal analysis/policy? Gonzales. Who is he? The Whitehouse legal "rep".

On the flip side of the coin there have now been plenty military legal people contesting 'the way it is' - even saying some conduct is illegal - whether military or not, to the extent Gonzales/Whitehouse then backed down after consideration.

Frankly.. on smaller issues, I'm sure anyone would get a fair trail. There are plenty honorable people interested in seeing that happens. On this issue, it's too incestuous and hell knows what may or may not be fair - only very few know anything about this and they are not going to talk. It's somewhat like a corrupt police department doing it's own investigation into problematic officers, but nothing new.

theking · 01-11-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

They are going to stick him with following orders that were not legal. And you know the drill on that. Just because you followed an order, does not mean the order was legal and therefor your actions were not legal either.

You are correct. Even if it can be proven that he was obeying orders...from whomever...military and/or civilian intelligence officers...he will be convicted for obeying what would not be legal orders...but if he can prove that he was obeying orders...it should help to mitigate is sentencing.

The reason I stated that this trial "could become a little interesting" is if he can prove that he was following orders...which I really doubt that he can.

As far as I know...at this point no one has been charged with issuing the orders that he claims he was following.

I suspect he and the handful of others were just fuckup's that had a little power and they abused it...as often happens in prisons in the US.

theking · 01-11-2005, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Who manages/engages the military? The government.

Who directly controls the military? The Secretary of Defence.

Who has been/is dictating legal analysis/policy? Gonzales. Who is he? The Whitehouse legal "rep".

On the flip side of the coin there have now been plenty military legal people contesting 'the way it is' - even saying some conduct is illegal - whether military or not, to the extent Gonzales/Whitehouse then backed down after consideration.

Frankly.. on smaller issues, I'm sure anyone would get a fair trail. There are plenty honorable people interested in seeing that happens. On this issue, it's too incestuous and hell knows what may or may not be fair - only very few know anything about this and they are not going to talk. It's somewhat like a corrupt police department doing it's own investigation into problematic officers, but nothing new.

Upper command influence does not filter down well to the lower ranks...which is what you seem to be implying. Military Courts are fairer than civilian courts as they are structured differently...and many...if not most...legal scholars will agree to that.

MBS Auto · 01-11-2005, 01:53 AM

There is no excuse for what happened there.... hang them all for making us look bad

theking · 01-11-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

Did you hear there is a new cable channel launching called The Military Channel?

No. I sometimes think the History Channel...should be renamed to the Military Channel.

Rinaldo · 01-11-2005, 09:31 AM

The Military courts are the most rediculously one sided governing bodies in the world... you don't get to defend yourself like you would in front of a jury

theking · 01-11-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platinum Rinaldo

The Military courts are the most rediculously one sided governing bodies in the world... you don't get to defend yourself like you would in front of a jury

It is apparent that you are not familiar with American Military Courts.

darksoft · 01-11-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

It is apparent that you are not familiar with American Military Courts.

I've sat in on a couple during my 9 year stint in the Army. They aren't as fair as you'd like to believe. You have a far better chance in a civilian court.

Honeyslut · 01-11-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoft

I've sat in on a couple during my 9 year stint in the Army. They aren't as fair as you'd like to believe. You have a far better chance in a civilian court.

I think it depends on the Judge.

theking · 01-11-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoft

I've sat in on a couple during my 9 year stint in the Army. They aren't as fair as you'd like to believe. You have a far better chance in a civilian court.

I too sat in on several during my 12 years in the Army. Define chance...if you will.

Entropy · 01-11-2005, 02:03 PM

This is like "A Few Good Men" part 2.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 02:26 PM

theKing:

Quote:

Upper command influence does not filter down well to the lower ranks...which is what you seem to be implying. Military Courts are fairer than civilian courts as they are structured differently...and many...if not most...legal scholars will agree to that.

No?? First I heard of any military that was a law unto itself and was not directed by or under the influence of some politician/leader.

You seriously think Rumsfield is not sitting on a razor blade hoping to hell some shit from Iraq or elsewhere never becomes public and thrown on to TV screens? His job is then to cover ass and hide it - the same as was done in the past - and do whatever to get a respectable face on it. At the same time, keep a clean towel handy to wash his hand and deny everything.

On legal scholars, assuming you mean jurists, - I know two and many others have already formed a majority "opinion" that there are too many fundamental flaws in the US civil justice system, - nevermind any military.

We are talking... eg.. basic rights flaws which are available to the vast majority of people on the planet, but the US is unable to afford these same rights to it's own citizens and part of the reason the US is unable to sign the Human Rights Treaty (tho they have it agreed that this is excellent for eveyone else).

All I've had from what you would call "legal scholars" is a rolling of eyes and a smile when it comes to "justice" in the US.

theking · 01-11-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

No?? First I heard of any military that was a law unto itself and was not directed by or under the influence of some politician/leader.

You seriously think Rumsfield is not sitting on a razor blade hoping to hell some shit from Iraq or elsewhere never becomes public and thrown on to TV screens? His job is then to cover ass and hide it - the same as was done in the past - and do whatever to get a respectable face on it. At the same time, keep a clean towel handy to wash his hand and deny everything.

On legal scholars, assuming you mean jurists, - I know two and many others have already formed a majority "opinion" that there are too many fundamental flaws in the US civil justice system, - nevermind any military.

We are talking... eg.. basic rights flaws which are available to the vast majority of people on the planet, but the US is unable to afford these same rights to it's own citizens and part of the reason the US is unable to sign the Human Rights Treaty (tho they have it agreed that this is excellent for eveyone else).

All I've had from what you would call "legal scholars" is a rolling of eyes and a smile when it comes to "justice" in the US.

Rumsfeld could attempt to apply Command influence during a Court Martial...and one or more high ranking Officers in turn could attempt to apply Command influence but such things cannot be ordered...as they would be unlawful orders and unlawful orders must not be obeyed.

Thus Command Influence does not filter down well...as it has to pass down through to many levels of warm bodies...many of which are honorable...dedicated people...that will not allow themselves to be unlawfully influenced...will resent the attempt and will actually lean the otherway.

Comprende?

Quote:

We are talking... eg.. basic rights flaws which are available to the vast majority of people on the planet

I will take this as the joke...you must have intended it to be.

darksoft · 01-11-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I too sat in on several during my 12 years in the Army. Define chance...if you will.

As in, in the military it's guilty until proven innocent and a Court Martial is as good as being booted. Nobody walks away from a Court Martial untouched, innocent or not.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 04:04 PM

theKing:

Quote:

I will take this as the joke...you must have intended it to be.

On your thoughts on command influence - that is something you or I will never know anything about. It was never designed that anyone other than those involved should know.

On the human rights issue - tho that is just one area - no, it's not a joke.

The rest of the signatories (around 140 plus countries so far) signed years back and are still waiting and looking forward to the day the US complies with and ratifies the Human Rights Treaty for their own citizens and offers them the same fundamental rights afforded elsewhere.

So far it is agreed this is a wonderful thing and the US participated in drafting the Treaty and is in agreement with it, but unfortunately is still unable to comply with the terms when set into practice.

theking · 01-11-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoft

As in, in the military it's guilty until proven innocent and a Court Martial is as good as being booted. Nobody walks away from a Court Martial untouched, innocent or not.

You are correct about not walking away untouched...which is different than being found guilty.

The way a military Courts Martial goes is as follows.

A troop is accused of a violation of the UCMJ.

The CA (Convening Authority which is usually the troop's CO (Commanding Officer or his sucessor) carries out an initial investigation...usually via members of his Command...or on occasion via Military or civilian law enforcement officers.

Once the investigation is completed the CA has multiple choices he can make...including taking no action.

If the CA determines that the investigation merits charges...based upon the seriousness of the charges...one of three types of Courts Martials will be recommend...with a General Courts Martial being the most severe of the three.

One of the specifics of why a General Courts Martial is fairer than the civilian system is an Article 32 hearing must be held. An Article 32 hearing is the equivilent of a civilian Grand Jury hearing.

In the civilian system a Grand Jury hearing is not always applied...where as in the Miltary system it is mandantory.

In the civilian Grand Jury a defendent is not allowed legal representation...and it is held in secret.

In an Article 32 hearing the accused is not only allowed legal representation but his Military Attorney as well as his civilian Attorney (the accused may choose to select a Military Attorney of his choosing or a Military Counsel who could be a non attorney...etiher at no expense to himself...and he may also hire a civilian attorney but at his expense) is afforded the opportunityto examine the evidence presented against him, cross-examine witnesses and present his own arguments.

The recommendations by the Article 32 Investigating Officer...are then reviewed once more...unlike a civilian Grand Jury...by the CA and his legal advisor.

Once again the CA can choose to take no action.

If the CA recommends that the Courts Martial proceed...the accused has the right to choose the composition of the court-martial or whether he is to be tried by a military judge alone, a military judge and members or a panel of members. Enlisted service members have the choice to request that the member?s panel include enlisted members...then even after the Courts Marial proceeding is over...the results are once again reviewed by the CA.

Once again the CA has options...such as reducing whatever sentences were meted out...and after his review...the results are reviewed at other higher levels...and the sentencing can be reduced...all the way up to the Commander in Chief...who can commute the sentence in its entiriety if he so chooses. Much as President Nixon did in Lt. Calley's case.

theking · 01-11-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

On your thoughts on command influence - that is something you or I will never know anything about. It was never designed that anyone other than those involved should know.

On the human rights issue - tho that is just one area - no, it's not a joke.

The rest of the signatories (around 140 plus countries so far) signed years back and are still waiting and looking forward to the day the US complies with and ratifies the Human Rights Treaty for their own citizens and offers them the same fundamental rights afforded elsewhere.

So far it is agreed this is a wonderful thing and the US participated in drafting the Treaty and is in agreement with it, but unfortunately is still unable to comply with the terms when set into practice.

Quote:
We are talking... eg.. basic rights flaws which are available to the vast majority of people on the planet

I repeat...this statement is a fucking joke...and if you choose to stand by it...you are...simply put...plumb dumb...but many know that is applicable to you anyhow.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 05:10 PM

theKing:

Quote:

We are talking... eg.. basic rights flaws which are available to the vast majority of people on the planet

I repeat...this statement is a fucking joke...and if you choose to stand by it...you are...simply put...plumb dumb...but many know that is applicable to you anyhow.

I noticed you did not even begin to address any specifics or say why the US cannot sign the Human Rights Treaty. Briefly and very simply - the US cannot comply with this treaty. This is BASIC and commonly accepted in other countries. There a problem someplace??? Duh?

The rest of your comments are the usual crap ya come out with when there is nothing to say - ie. "pigshit", "fucking joke" blah. All meaningless.

theking · 01-11-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

I noticed you did not even begin to address any specifics or say why the US cannot sign the Human Rights Treaty. Briefly and very simply - the US cannot comply with this treaty. This is BASIC and commonly accepted in other countries. There a problem someplace??? Duh?

The rest of your comments are the usual crap ya come out with when there is nothing to say - ie. "pigshit", "fucking joke" blah. All meaningless.

The US has explained its position...but you choose not to agree with the position...because you hate America...and prove it...just as does directfiesta...virtually...on a daily basis...by bashing any position America takes.

The majority of people live in countries that do not practice "basic human rights"...period...so yes your statement is a joke.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 05:30 PM

theKing:

Quote:

The US has explained its position...but you choose not to agree with the position...because you hate America...and prove it...just as does directfiesta...virtually...on a daily basis...by bashing any position America takes.

The majority of people live in countries that do not practice "basic human rights"...period...so yes your statement is a joke.

Yea?? What position is that??

It's got nothing to do with me what the US decides to do or not - frankly, I don't give a damn. It will still remain the only country in the Western world that is unable to comply with the terms of a treaty they agreed to, but are unable to ratify. Nada else to say.

Yada yada yada.. yea, it's all about "hate" isn't it?? Anything that is "unacceptable" means whoever must be a "hater". Pathetic excuse as a defence!

When you manage to agree to the basic human rights offered in this treaty, perhaps then you may be qualified to even discuss it. You either do or do not comply - it's that simple.

theking · 01-11-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:
It's got nothing to do with me what the US decides to do or not - frankly, I don't give a damn.

You are correct...it has nothing to do with you...and I am pleased to learn that you do not give a damn about what the US does. I assume that since you do not give a damn...you will be posting 99% less than in the past. Hmm...somehow I just do not believe this...as your's and directfiesta lives revolve around your daily bashing of America...as well as a few others on this board.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 05:44 PM

theKing:

Quote:

You are correct...it has nothing to do with you...and I am pleased to learn that you do not give a damn about what the US does. I assume that since you do not give a damn...you will be posting 99% less than in the past. Hmm...somehow I just do not believe this...as your's and directfiesta lives revolve around your daily bashing of America...as well as a few others on this board.

Still more bullshit??

For a man who moans of others "hating" you are doing very well at trying to say black is white, how others hate and talk bullshit.

I'll repeat... "You either do or do not comply - it's that simple."

theking · 01-11-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

Still more bullshit??

For a man who moans of others "hating" you are doing very well at trying to say black is white, how others hate and talk bullshit.

I'll repeat... "You either do or do not comply - it's that simple."

The Adminstration/Congress chooses what to sign and what not to sign...it is that simple...and remember that you do not "give a damn" "what the US decides to do or not"...but yet you are still yapping.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 05:54 PM

theKing:

Quote:

The Adminstration/Congress chooses what to sign and what not to sign...it is that simple...and remember that you do not "give a damn" "what the US decides to do or not"...but yet you are still yapping.

Simply put... the US does not and currently cannot comply with the terms negotiated for the Human Rights Treaty.

Is there a problem saying this??

theking · 01-11-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

Simply put... the US does not and currently cannot comply with the terms negotiated for the Human Rights Treaty.

Is there a problem saying this??

Yap..yap..yap and of course this is your non-educated opinion...and is of no import. Is there a problem with you admitting this?

You just cannot help yourself can you? You live to yap...yap...yap about America. Fucking pathetic.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 06:02 PM

theKing:

Quote:

Yap..yap..yap and of course this is your non-educated opinion...

No... it's not any "opinion" of mine or anyone else. It is fact - nothing more.

EZRhino · 01-11-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

You are correct about not walking away untouched...which is different than being found guilty.

The way a military Courts Martial goes is as follows.

A troop is accused of a violation of the UCMJ.

The CA (Convening Authority which is usually the troop's CO (Commanding Officer or his sucessor) carries out an initial investigation...usually via members of his Command...or on occasion via Military or civilian law enforcement officers.

Once the investigation is completed the CA has multiple choices he can make...including taking no action.

If the CA determines that the investigation merits charges...based upon the seriousness of the charges...one of three types of Courts Martials will be recommend...with a General Courts Martial being the most severe of the three.

One of the specifics of why a General Courts Martial is fairer than the civilian system is an Article 32 hearing must be held. An Article 32 hearing is the equivilent of a civilian Grand Jury hearing.

In the civilian system a Grand Jury hearing is not always applied...where as in the Miltary system it is mandantory.

In the civilian Grand Jury a defendent is not allowed legal representation...and it is held in secret.

In an Article 32 hearing the accused is not only allowed legal representation but his Military Attorney as well as his civilian Attorney (the accused may choose to select a Military Attorney of his choosing or a Military Counsel who could be a non attorney...etiher at no expense to himself...and he may also hire a civilian attorney but at his expense) is afforded the opportunityto examine the evidence presented against him, cross-examine witnesses and present his own arguments.

The recommendations by the Article 32 Investigating Officer...are then reviewed once more...unlike a civilian Grand Jury...by the CA and his legal advisor.

Once again the CA can choose to take no action.

If the CA recommends that the Courts Martial proceed...the accused has the right to choose the composition of the court-martial or whether he is to be tried by a military judge alone, a military judge and members or a panel of members. Enlisted service members have the choice to request that the member?s panel include enlisted members...then even after the Courts Marial proceeding is over...the results are once again reviewed by the CA.

Once again the CA has options...such as reducing whatever sentences were meted out...and after his review...the results are reviewed at other higher levels...and the sentencing can be reduced...all the way up to the Commander in Chief...who can commute the sentence in its entiriety if he so chooses. Much as President Nixon did in Lt. Calley's case.

Now thats one comprehensive post

theking · 01-11-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

No... it's not any "opinion" of mine or anyone else. It is fact - nothing more.

Yap...yap...yap. I see...a fact...becomes fact...because the yapper says that it is fact. Yap...yap...yap.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 06:21 PM

theKing:

Quote:

I see...a fact...becomes fact...because the yapper says that it is fact.

No.. a fact is a fact because it is a fact, which is...

The US has neither adopted or can currently comply with the terms of the Human Rights Treaty which it negotiated but never ratified and this Treaty has been in operating in around 140 countries over the last few years.

Are you even attempting to say fact is not fact and that the has US signed this Treaty?

I'll repeat again... ""You either do or do not comply - it's that simple." and also help with the answer which is - The US does not currently comply. Enough said!

nojob · 01-11-2005, 06:23 PM

It was wrong for what he did.. but if he was just following orders , then I think he shouldn't go down alone.

Rochard · 01-11-2005, 06:33 PM

I am a former US Marine. Marines are trained at all levels what is and what is not acceptable with POWs. You would be stunned at what is considered acceptable. Let's just say that during war games when I was captured, well, I bascially got the shit beat out of me. A POW in a war zone - or in Cuba for that matter - is not afforded the same rights as somone in a civilian jail.

All of these people were guilty of mistreatment, orders or not. And they will be held accountable.

That's the difference between us and them - We punish people for doing this, while they do it.

theking · 01-11-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

theKing:

No.. a fact is a fact because it is a fact, which is...

The US has neither adopted or can currently comply with the terms of the Human Rights Treaty which it negotiated but never ratified and this Treaty has been in operating in around 140 countries over the last few years.

Are you even attempting to say fact is not fact and that the has US signed this Treaty?

I'll repeat again... ""You either do or do not comply - it's that simple." and also help with the answer which is - The US does not currently comply. Enough said!

You really are not very well informed if you think that the majority of 140 countires that may be signatures...practice basic human rights. In addition the US can comply but chooses not to sign and it was explained to the American people and the world why it will not sign. The elected members of the government ie. the President and the Congress represent what is in the best interests of Americans...end of story.

Carry on with your yap...yap...yapping...as I know that you cannot prevent your compulsive obessive self from doing so.

Webby · 01-11-2005, 07:14 PM

theKing:

You either do or do not comply - it's that simple.

pxxx · 01-11-2005, 07:31 PM

I think they need to stop this whole thing.

darksoft · 01-11-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocHard

I am a former US Marine. Marines are trained at all levels what is and what is not acceptable with POWs. You would be stunned at what is considered acceptable. Let's just say that during war games when I was captured, well, I bascially got the shit beat out of me. A POW in a war zone - or in Cuba for that matter - is not afforded the same rights as somone in a civilian jail.

All of these people were guilty of mistreatment, orders or not. And they will be held accountable.

That's the difference between us and them - We punish people for doing this, while they do it.

I'm sorry, I just think it's all bullshit. War is war. It ain't pretty, it ain't nice and it ain't clean. If you have to tune someone up to get info that will save your life or the lives of others, so be it. If it takes more than a tune-up, that's what it takes.

You can't be PC when you're in a war. It don't work. Those insurgents aren't just gonna up and holds hands, sing songs and give us a reacharound if we ask nice. They're gonna blow themselves up and as many of us as they can when they do it. So why the fuck should we mollycoddle them? Were the beheadings so soon forgotten?

01-10-2005, 08:36 PM	#1
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	The first Military Court Martial trial ...has begun for the Abu Ghraib abuses. Spc. Graner is the first to go to trial. Those Court Martialed prior to him pled guilty and accepted plea bargins. This one could become a little interesting as Spc. Graner is claiming he was "doing his job, following orders and being praised for it." __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

01-10-2005, 09:32 PM	#2
IRQ0 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kamloops, BC Posts: 144	I too am looking forward to the out come even though it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial. He will get railroaded. The government will not allow the real story to get out as it would make them look really bad and they want people to think they aren't. I do think we will get glimpses of the truth but it will not go very far if anywhere and will be down played. __________________ NudeCelebHound.com - $20 per FREE signup! 100 page Free Hosted Site - ICQ 230541378 Sadonecrobeastiality: beating a dead horse.

01-10-2005, 10:47 PM	#3
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	Oh the land of the free __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

01-10-2005, 10:56 PM	#4
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	The land of the tree's and the home of the slaves. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

01-10-2005, 10:57 PM	#5
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Did you hear there is a new cable channel launching called The Military Channel? __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

01-11-2005, 12:37 AM	#9
Pete-KT Workin With The Devil Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Bloomfield, MI Posts: 51,532	good she should do the same to them as they did to the prisioners Pete

01-11-2005, 01:53 AM	#13
MBS Auto Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Sin City Baby... Posts: 1,725	There is no excuse for what happened there.... hang them all for making us look bad __________________ Shoes and Boot

01-11-2005, 09:31 AM	#15
Rinaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: South Florida Posts: 5,086	The Military courts are the most rediculously one sided governing bodies in the world... you don't get to defend yourself like you would in front of a jury

01-11-2005, 02:03 PM	#20
Entropy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Somewhere Posts: 4,128	This is like "A Few Good Men" part 2. __________________ The Gay Market Is Where The Money's At! AlleyBucks Is The Queer Eye For Straight Webmaster Guys CCBill Based Affiliate Program With Hosted Galleries ICQ: 226-359-635

01-11-2005, 06:23 PM	#39
nojob The Original NoJob Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Jerzzey Posts: 3,682	It was wrong for what he did.. but if he was just following orders , then I think he shouldn't go down alone.

01-11-2005, 06:33 PM	#40
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,014	I am a former US Marine. Marines are trained at all levels what is and what is not acceptable with POWs. You would be stunned at what is considered acceptable. Let's just say that during war games when I was captured, well, I bascially got the shit beat out of me. A POW in a war zone - or in Cuba for that matter - is not afforded the same rights as somone in a civilian jail. All of these people were guilty of mistreatment, orders or not. And they will be held accountable. That's the difference between us and them - We punish people for doing this, while they do it. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

01-11-2005, 07:14 PM	#42
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	theKing: You either do or do not comply - it's that simple. __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

01-11-2005, 07:31 PM	#43
pxxx First African GFY Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 12,114	I think they need to stop this whole thing.