Why not? Their Commander-in-Chief has been acting outside of the law (while declaring he hasn't been) for years. Dubya's corruption has trickled down to the boots on the ground in his bloody war.Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by United States soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
The documents, released today by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 cases. They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
If they are punished for his actions, it'll be another stain on his legacy.
14 comments:
John K. says: Yes, the troops were acting within what they thought was the law. Only a hard core lefty would think they were not. Are any of these 18 - 20 year olds lawyers? They do their job and make decisions within split seconds. Civilians, to include ACLU lawyers, take days to make decisions, consult reams of documents. And then even lawyers, to include the ACLU, get it wrong occasionally. Time for the left to step up and back up their rhetoric and support the troops. After all, we clearly know that Al Queda does not support the troops. Would be nice to know left leaning Americans do. After all, these men guard the walls you erected.
What "John K" is missing is that the REASON the troops thought they were following the law was because the instructions they were given were skewed.
When dubya and Cheney took it upon themselves to efectively rewrite the military code of conduct, it was only a matter of time before atrocities would occur.
THEY should support the troops and not be putting them in harms way. Whatever the fault is, it lies in the oval office.
You support the troops, do you John? You must be absolutely enraged about the way the Monkey Man gives them shoddy equipment, lousy training, inadequate rest, short turnaround, and long tours, huh? I'll bet you think Dubya is a real asshole, huh? Why don't we all say it together: Bush abuses the troops. Again: Bush abuses the troops. Can you say it by yourself: Bush abuses the troops. I knew you could. There. Feel better?
OT: Breaking:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/04/mccain-thanks-for-the-question-you-little-jerk/
John McCain is falling apart.
John K. says: No President Clinton abused the troops. The same HMMV and M-16A2 used during the Clinton era is the same as the current era. This President respects the troops. And why is the left always using the term "autrocity"? Is that what the left thinks of these troops? There never is any praise.
I would remind the left that during WW Two we fired bombed Dresden and Tokyo as well as dug every Japanese soldier who resisted out and killed them. Yet, that is the greatest generation that did that and the word autrocity will never be used when referring to these veterans. Walk into a VFW and try it if you don't believe me.
So what do our troops ask? The exact same consideration. Stop with the autrocity stuff. Stop painting all these Iraqi veterans with the same brush. And stop thinking the troops are so stupid they are mindlessly controlled by Bush/Cheney. That is just insulting.
OK, it's your position that Clinton and Bush both abused the troops. Like you, I hated the way Clinton sent the Guard into combat without enough rest and for endless multiple tours. But Clinton's gone and Bush remains for us both to revile. It's nice to know we have your support.
And why is the left always using the term "autrocity"?
Actually, John K. is the only person I have ever seen using that term. Do you have any idea why he hates the troops?
John K. says: Actually shitrock I always suspected you never actually read any posts, just reacted. If you took the time to scroll to the post by anonymous you will clearly see the term autrocity used to describe our troops. Don't let that fret you though, just keep hating Bush, that is so constructive. By the way, I never equated Bush with Clinton. Read the post. Clinton never had the respect of any troops, Bush does.
John, I admire the way you keep finding new and creative ways of being wrong. Anonymous used the word "atrocities," you used the non-word "autrocity."
Are we surprised that you failed to get the point? I think we're beyond being surprised by Wingnuts.
John K. says: Well shitrock I was right. Not a word of praise for our troops. Nope not a one. My base argument is proven correct.
Could you hold on just a minute, John? I need some groceries, so I'm going to shoot down one of those pigs that are flying over.
I served in the armed forces, John. That's all the praise, all the evidence of patriotism, I ever need to give. One wonders why you feel the need to trumpet your "love of the Fatherland" so much. But don't bother to answer: One doesn't wonder very much.
Yo! John! Are you still there? John? John?
Hmm, must be hangin' out at the VFW getting drunk with the other chickenhawks.
Unnamed intelligence sources report that John K. is unable to respond. He has been sent on an undercover assignment tracking down, capturing, and employing Enhanced Interrogation Techniques on Islamo-Fascist Terrorists at Wild Thingz.
Where the heck did that clown John K. come from anyway? The shallowness and easy refutations of his "arguments" are stunning. Musta wandered over from the Freepers.
Apparently, John K. and Braden get their talking points from similar, rather lame, wingnuts.
Same rage, same stupidity, same inaccuracy, same tone. John is just a little dumber than Master Lie, maybe.
Post a Comment