Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was not suicide but a prescription drug overdose via opiates.
He was a frequent abuser of them so it was a matter of time.
It happens a lot across the country.
ya. there are thousands of combat marines who abuse drugs...……….
My two uncles, one brother, two ex (late) boyfriends, current fiance, many childhood friends were in the service. Majority of them have seen combat. They understand trigger happy soldiers and marines are liabilities to the military, not the asset, they also understand questionable things happen in war. Urinating on the dead enemies should never be encouraged, but it is a highly emotional situation caused by anger, frustration, maybe even survivor guilt, and combat stress. Treating these people as war criminals is counterproductive.
add:
From individuals it can be a symbolic rejection of fear. "You made me afraid. Now that you're dead I'll show you what I think of that". Pissing and ****ting on a defeated enemy are a great way of doing that.
Ritualistic mutilation of defeated enemies is so common that there is probably some cathartic effect in doing so.
Organisationally mutilation and abuse if the dead is a power trip. It shows clearly who has won and who has lost - and is a challenge to "come out and get beaten again".
That the dead here are Taliban and the living are US marines is irrelevant. This is something that men do in war.
All these being said, I am not saying these marines are heros and their behavior should be encouraged, treating them as war criminals,however,is definitely PC being out of control. It is counterproductive.
First, I'm sorry for your losses.
And I agree, doing whatever to already dead bodies shouldn't be categorised as a war crime. War crimes are extremely serious and there should be NO watering down the meaning of that term. That term should be reserved for torture, deliberate mistreatment of captives, biological warfare, genocide, targeting civilians, and atrocities of that nature.
However, it's extremely unwise for the military to allow troops to desecrate enemy corpses. Reason being, it puts American troops at even greater risk for being tortured and gruesomely slaughtered if captured by enemy troops who see how they've been treating the bodies of their countrymen...
Countrymen who are most likely only originally began fighting for self-defense against the US invading their land in the first place.
do you honestly believe the Taliban/ISIS/Iraqis insurgents/AQ play by the rules? ROFL
when I was in Iraq in 2004, I saved a bullet in my breast pocket with my name on it just in case I get captured by the insurgents.
Of course not. They'd mistreat any captive they had in their custody. But there's routine mistreatment (which is obviously wrong in and of itself), and then there's special delight to go out of their way to *really* make certain captives suffer because they're from a particular country.
Would you rather be knocked around and just eventually starve? Or would you rather be slowly flayed alive little by little for months until you look like a human muscle anatomy poster?
And I agree, doing whatever to already dead bodies shouldn't be categorised as a war crime. War crimes are extremely serious and there should be NO watering down the meaning of that term. That term should be reserved for torture, deliberate mistreatment of captives, biological warfare, genocide, targeting civilians, and atrocities of that nature.
However, it's extremely unwise for the military to allow troops to desecrate enemy corpses. Reason being, it puts American troops at even greater risk for being tortured and gruesomely slaughtered if captured by enemy troops who see how they've been treating the bodies of their countrymen...
Countrymen who are most likely only originally began fighting for self-defense against the US invading their land in the first place.
I agree. This is a balanced post.
i agree that it is unwise for the military to allow troops to desecrate enemy corpses, but punishment needs to be proportional to the crime. Reduction in rank seems reasonable in my opinion. Treating these as convicted felons for the rest of their lives?Seems incredibly harsh.
This being said, I cannot help but thinking many people subconsciously using double standards to judge the soldiers. WW2 = good war, so the soldiers who urinated on the dead Nazis and Japanese soldiers are heroes. American troops who urinated on the dead talibans = war criminals.
In fact, neither behavior should be encouraged or glorified, neither should be considered as war crimes. It (disrespecting the dead) is unfortunate the byproduct of the war. I doubt it will stop any time soon.
Golsteyn is alleged to have killed a woman and child by his fellow Navy Seals, is that considered PC.
Should he have a trial before being pardoned.
According to all that I have read this is just not true. Army Times:
Quote:
After eight years, two investigations and the intervention of a congressman, Maj. Matthew Golsteyn is being charged with murder in the death of an Afghan man during a 2010 deployment.
As for Gallagher, he may very well be guilty of what he's accused but, it may be very hard to get a conviction since some of those that reported him have either recanted of are no longer willing to testify. There is also the matter that there were no bodies. If he did indeed kill the number of people that has been claimed, they should have been able to find one of them. Then there is the matter of text messages of witnesses wanting to make sure their stories all match up.
Assuming that the witnesses even show up — at least three of them have threatened to assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify, according to emails provided to Navy Times.
One of the SEALs is particularly prized by prosecutors because he allegedly was an eyewitness to the murder, but he’s prepared to go to the brig rather than testify in Gallagher’s trial, according to an email provided to Navy Times.
And others have declined to participate in the ongoing NCIS probe, including a Marine staff sergeant and a pair of Navy explosive ordnance disposal technicians attached to the platoon during the 2017 deployment.
The only skin I have in this game is that there are many incongruent things that have been reported. I work on a very large military installation and interact with hundreds of soldiers and sailors daily. The vast majority that talk about these incidents think there are some dirty dealings going on and that some may be getting railroaded.
According to all that I have read this is just not true. Army Times:
My mistake, that was Gallagher not Golsteyn that was accused of murdering the civilians
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibginnie
As for Gallagher, he may very well be guilty of what he's accused but, it may be very hard to get a conviction since some of those that reported him have either recanted of are no longer willing to testify. There is also the matter that there were no bodies. If he did indeed kill the number of people that has been claimed, they should have been able to find one of them. Then there is the matter of text messages of witnesses wanting to make sure their stories all match up.
Investigating these actions in a war zone are difficult and it will be difficult but he should stand trial. This was his own team that requested the investigation.
Quote:
Tired of being brushed off, seven members of the platoon called a private meeting with their troop commander in March 2018 at Naval Base Coronado near San Diego. According to a confidential Navy criminal investigation report obtained by The New York Times, they gave him the bloody details and asked for a formal investigation.
The only skin I have in this game is that there are many incongruent things that have been reported. I work on a very large military installation and interact with hundreds of soldiers and sailors daily. The vast majority that talk about these incidents think there are some dirty dealings going on and that some may be getting railroaded.
I don't see that any of these soldiers isn't getting a fair trial, if they are pardoned what does that say about their behavior. Gallagher's own lawyer stated that he wanted to see his clients name cleared in court.
Last edited by Goodnight; 05-24-2019 at 04:10 PM..
So will you call ww2 vets who urinated on dead German and Japanese soldiers criminals too? Just answer the question. Don't make this so complicated. If you cannot give straight forward answer, just say so. if you want to have double standards based on the nature of the war, just say so. Going back in time looking for the least common denominator i an attempt to dismiss their action does not fly? This sentence is so laughable. Disrespecting the dead in war is so common, it happens in every war!!!!! It is NOT civilized, it should not be encouraged, but they are simply not the same as My Lai massacre. If you wanted to paint these people as horrible war criminals, you do so. I have a different opinion. Plus, a punishment should be proportional to the "crime" they committed. Reduction in rank seems reasonable, but they should not be treated as convicted felons for the rest of their lives, so a pardon is absolutely reasonable in my book.
The bold, The pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction. A pardon is "considered" does not mean a pardon will be granted. Get your fact straight.
plus, Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered. So if the prosecutors mishandled the case, the person might be pardoned as well. There are many reasons why a pardon is considered.
Your argument is that atrocities happened in the past so that now becomes the standard and we should give them a pass. I wouldn't dismiss the soldiers that desecrated the dead, once again your argument that it happens all the time is just an attempt to rationalize their behavior. They did a lot of damage to our standing with the Afghans and our allies, how do you think that went over with the population we are attempting to win over. Besides you are arguing over a $500 fine and a reduction in rank, so why is a pardon important in that particular case, what is the point.
So now Trump is taking this action because there is corruption, These pardons should have been recommended by the military, how is someone wrongly convicted since they have yet to be tried. Maybe you can provide some examples of soldiers that were pardoned before going to trial.
Your argument is that atrocities happened in the past so that now becomes the standard and we should give them a pass. I wouldn't dismiss the soldiers that desecrated the dead, once again your argument that it happens all the time is just an attempt to rationalize their behavior. They did a lot of damage to our standing with the Afghans and our allies, how do you think that went over with the population we are attempting to win over. Besides you are arguing over a $500 fine and a reduction in rank, so why is a pardon important in that particular case, what is the point.
So now Trump is taking this action because there is corruption, These pardons should have been recommended by the military, how is someone wrongly convicted since they have yet to be tried. Maybe you can provide some examples of soldiers that were pardoned before going to trial.
First paragraph, no, not my argument. But urinating on dead enemies is simply not the same as My Lai massacre. How many times do I have to repeat myself? it is a highly uncivilized behavior, but it hardly qualifies for a war crime. If you STILL dont understand, then let's try this: My Lai Massacre = war crime; urinating on DEAD enemies = uncivilized behavior. A punishment needs to be proportional to the crime.
Second paraph, there are many reasons why a pardon is considered. I never said so now Trump is taking this action because there is corruption. A pardon is considered does not mean a pardon will be granted. A pardon does not mean "You have done nothing wrong." understand?
This will be the LAST post from me for you. If you have anything valuable to add, great, otherwise, I really am sick and tired of repeating myself. If you want to twist my words, maybe try somebody else to argue with.
First paragraph, no, not my argument. But urinating on dead enemies is simply not the same as My Lai massacre. How many times do I have to repeat myself? it is a highly uncivilized behavior, but it hardly qualifies for a war crime. If you STILL dont understand, then let's try this: My Lai Massacre = war crime; urinating on DEAD enemies = uncivilized behavior. A punishment needs to be proportional to the crime.
Second paraph, there are many reasons why a pardon is considered. I never said so now Trump is taking this action because there is corruption. A pardon is considered does not mean a pardon will be granted. A pardon does not mean "You have done nothing wrong." understand?
This will be the LAST post from me for you. If you have anything valuable to add, great, otherwise, I really am sick and tired of repeating myself. If you want to twist my words, maybe try somebody else to argue with.
No one is comparing urinating on dead people to My Lai but it is a crime whether you like it or not and it certainly had a large impact on us. You never answered the question, why is a pardon important to soldiers that received a $500 fine, wht exactly does that do for them.
Yes he is still considering pardons but why did Trump request the records for 10 people just before memorial many of whom have not been to trial. You seem to be rationalizing that by stating this is the case in some a pardons but I doubt you have an example.
We will see if he follows through but it the soldier that was pardoned last month is any indication I think that will be the case.
My mistake, that was Gallagher not Golsteyn that was accused of murdering the civilians
Investigating these actions in a war zone are difficult and it will be difficult but he should stand trial. This was his own team that requested the investigation.
I don't see that any of these soldiers isn't getting a fair trial, if they are pardoned what does that say about their behavior. Gallagher's own lawyer stated that he wanted to see his clients name cleared in court.
And now it's some of those very same team members that are not willing to testify.
If you haven't read the entire article I posted above I suggest you do so. There is much more current information in there than in the NYT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
