Posted on 08/21/2011 11:10:26 AM PDT by Nachum
The Iraqi sniper captured after he killed two Marines has been freed and is at liberty - even as the still-grieving families of Brooklyn-raised Capt. John McKenna 4th and Queens-raised Michael Glover gather in Rockaway today for a memorial marking the fifth anniversary of their deaths.The families had been assured that "as long as there is a Marine in Iraq, the sniper will remain in jail." Their already overwhelming loss has been compounded by the failure of the Defense Department to inform them that Muhammad (Big Ears) Awwad Ahmad had been released.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Honest to God, I did not know that.
I will do some research on that. I am sorry for that, I truly am.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Yeah back when I was in Iraq in 2005,we did have a policy of keeping an eye on terrorists/insurgents being released from jail.This is really nothing new.
As for the sniper,he fought for his town and his people.Either give him the death he wanted or toss him back on the streets.Let the Iraqi security forces deal with him one way or another.
I never viewed anyone over in Iraq,I was fighting against as truly criminal for the most part things went insane out there.
This is not my United States.
Our country has gone to hell in a handbasket, driven by Democrats liberals Judges with sh!t for brains and a Muslim Faux President.
I posted a thread or 2. Keyword ‘vela’.
And that WAS really laughter. Just the psychotic kind.
Yea, verily.
A good President would pardon them. Let’s hope we get one.
I guess that leaves out both Bush and Obama. But in all fairness we didn't try Obama. Pretty pointless asking that moslem for anything.
So, I just want to make sure I have the facts correct:
While Sgt Vela was a sniper, he did not shoot the man in that capacity.
He was ordered to shoot an unarmed man, with his hands raised. While I have never been in combat, I know that unless the person is an immediate threat (as in the case of a suicide bomber) this was an illegal order.
Sgt Vela admitted to this in court, under oath.
I am not sure the story is germane to this thread because the context of the shootings is different. It is also true that Vela was not imprisoned for any of the people he shot on that mission, nor any of the other missions he completed.
I do agree that his sentence should have been less. But the facts as I read them point to him being guilty of following an illegal order.
This is why the U.S. never should have been in that sh!t-hole in the first place. If this country was really supposed to be fighting a "war on terror," we were on the wrong side going all the way back to the first Gulf War in 1990.
In the short sense, yes.
Please read this. It is long.
http://www.esquire.com/features/michael-hensley-0708
Get it straight. This is what the president said... "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
And securing does not mean putting a lock on a door.
Get it straight. This is what the president said... "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
And securing does not mean putting a lock on a door.
Please remove. Sorry for the double post.
Like I said: A well-armed Peace Corps operating under fire. This is what you get when you have a country run by lawyers.
Hopefully one of our very well trained military will take it upon their self to hunt this maggot down and exterminate him.
Were it me, I’d take out his entire family first then him just to make and example.
Well, that's the problem. Use his exact words, not your made up ones.
I do agree with your following statement. The results are obvious. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 militarily. The geniuses that we have elected and that lead our military continue a war 10 years later with no resolution in sight. What are they trying for?, A new hundred-year war? The thirty years war is within arms reach.
The objective of war is to win. If you can't win, don't go there.
Thanks for the link.
Alberta's Child... Here is a quote from the link that demonstrates the thinking that we hold now.
"My soldiers are paratroopers," Balcavage says. "And when paratroopers come to a country, all they want to do is kill and break stuff. Well, you can do that all day long without any progress. You've got to do it with the Iraqis. You can't win a war just by killing people."
The writer easily recognizes a flaw in the "logic" presented.
But then, you can't win a war just by paying people, either, or else it wouldn't be war. And Balcavage was at war before the surge took hold. His men were being shot at by snipers and blown up by IEDs. They were taking mortar fire. In the IED attack that gave the battalion its first combat fatality, on December 20, 2006, one of the survivors lost not only his legs below the knee but also his penis, and the soldier who died was electrocuted by a power line transformed by the blast into a lethal whip.
In my VN experience captured VC were turned over to the
ARVN for whatever passed for legal process in their system.
We weren’t supposed to shoot them out of hand, although
it did happen from time to time.
In earlier wars, there would have been a short proceeding
before the senior officer commanding, followed by a hanging or firing squad. Since Hamdan v. Runsfeld overturned the
prior art in dealing with ununiformed combatants, soldiers probably have to treat all captured enemy as if they are state actors in uniform.
I agree, the sniper was an Iraqi fighting in his country against a foreign army, he killed two of the enemy’s soldiers in battle. Those were not acts of terrorism or war crimes. I am glad his side lost and the US won but simply fighting against US forces does not make someone a terrorist or criminal.
As others have said the US forces who captured him could have executed him on the spot as an irregular fighter (assuming he was an irregular and not a uniformed member of the Iraqi army) but once they captured him and handed him over to the proper authorities he became a prisoner of war and as such entitled to his freedom once the conflict was ended.
It was idiotic to treat this man as if he was a criminal.
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.