U.S. Seeks to Exhume Iraqi Girls Remains

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Chief_Joseph, Jul 9, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It sounds like the locals are cooperating the Army investigators. That's an encouraging sign. It is disturbing though. I doubt the Army is going to show leniency, they not only violated basic human morality, they went AWOL, brought contraband into their checkpoint (alcohol), and disgraced their country. Enough out of me though, what do you guys think?
     
  2. If armed drunken soldiers in AWOL in USA would make similar things then it would be a news number 1 and would be on front pages of all main newspapers.

    I believe that mr.Bush should bring sincere apologies to Iraqi people. Namely he as supreme commander of American armed forces sent these soldiers to Iraq, he supplied them with weapons and authority. It is his responsibility.

    Form emotional point of view I can understand even My Lai massacre as war crime committed under stress, because many your friends were killed and you are unable to find an enemy that done it

    And note this crime happened after Abu Graib, after (I suppose) extraordinary measures to prevent any war crimes.

    What are my prdictions? They are sad. The investigation would be very lengthy and probably it would be overshadowed by even more terrible atrocities. On this background the crime has a good chances to be almost forgotten.

    Let's remember one case with alleged war crime allegedly committed by British servicemen (I don' tmention concrete case not to violate the rules). After months and even years, after Abu Graib and recent events, it looks not so terrible as it looked before.
     
  3. It is Mr Bush who is responsible, however, responsible for what? The case agaisnt these Americans has not been proved as yet, and untill it is proved or disproved then no apologies need to be made, surely such a statement would be considered an admission of guilt before the trial? What would happen if they soldiers are then found not guilty? or perhaps if found guilty it could be used as a claim that the court case was not fair as guilt had been decided beforehand?

    Of course any investigation is going to be lengthy, a rape/murder case isn't something to be rushed. Surely you would prefer a full and proper investigation so the facts can be brought to light, you wouldn't want anyone convited on poor evidence, or even escaping punishment because of the same?
     
  4. I understand your point. Presuption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. But suppose that somebody was detained by American or British armed forces. He was in healthy state in the moment of the detention. But he died in custody apparently not from natural causes. In this case

    1. The guilt of individuals responsible could be estanlished in a kengthy investigation and scrutinised in a lengthy trial

    but

    2. The guilt of the state is obvious. Reasonable material compensation and appologies should be provided immediately.

    In the case that we are discussing the guilt of the state as I understand has been established because Washington Post would not publish such a horrific story without sufficiet ground.

    I hope you understand my point.