Replies

It is the "Iraqi" side when you take a filthy Iraqi terrorists word over an American soldiers word.

Well, let's just look at what the article says:

Fellow soldiers testified that the four Pennsylvania reservists punched and kicked prisoners who were being brought to an American camp in southern Iraq on May 12.

Now -- if you want to call her fellow soldiers "filthy Iraqi terrorists," you're free to do so. It would be more reasonable, however, if you simply read the article before posting stupid opinions.

Fellow soldiers testified that the four Pennsylvania reservists punched and kicked prisoners who were being brought to an American camp in southern Iraq on May 12.

You wanna play the pick apart game? I can play it too? Where does it say that they testified about an unprovoked attack? Where in the world does it say that the filthy Iraqi terrorist wasn't attacking the other soldiers?????????????

Just for your knowledge, when they say that 'fellow soldiers testified', this isn't to say that they brought the charges.

The way it works in the military these days is that anyone connected with an event that generates a complaint will be forced to sign a sworn statement regarding what they saw. The Iraqis could have filed the complaint, or an officer who was worried about his career could have done so. The soldier's testimony is simply that they witnessed or had knowledge of the event.

If a soldier saw another punch or kick a prisoner, they have to state that they did, regardess of whether or not it was self defense. I've had to testify about an event that I witnessed, even though I didn't initiate the complaint, and there was no actual wrongdoing. The military is simply trying to cover it's ass, which is SOP when there is any possibility of negative publicity.