help the marine that killed the insurgent enemy
- Thread starter thrasherfox
- Start date
Just trying to keep the peace snake.
But your right.. in the end. I pencil in the neck would have been more economical.
Well I must say that you got me with the presumption of innocence point. You are right that we should presume innocence till proven guilty. I should have phrased that differently. My point was that the petition seem to go a bit further than an assumption of innocence. It seemed to say that because the guy was a Marine, he was automatically innocent and that an investigation was out of the question. He came out and said that nothing should happen to the Marine....not even an investigation that would clear him. So the petition writer's point of view was clear....(INNOCENT WITH NO NEED OF PROOF). But then you said that it wasn't about innocence or guilt....just support. So that is what I was responding to. But good point about the presumption of innocence. We can't forget that!
My irritation that maybe was improperly expressed here and if I offended you personally I did not intend to. Was I had been reading so much stuff in the news paper and watching how much publicity there was and most of the media was effectively slanting the situation I felt in a negative light towards the Marine that I was getting very irritated that we have people dying every day and one Marine in a combat environment was getting so much negative publicity.
[/QUOTE]
That is fair enough. I don't blame you for responding to slanted media coverage. I hadn't seen any coverage of it. If there was a petition stating that the Marine should go down for his crime, I wouldn't have signed that either. I would have signed a petition stating that the Marine is innocent till proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. I could get on board with that one.
And again I apologize if I offended you, I guess the only thing I can say is it is a Marine thing.[/QUOTE]
Nope, an apology isn't necessary. I thought this was a pretty intelligent exchange, which is about all we can ask. You clearly take the time to read and think about what people say, and I appreciate that. Again, that is all we can ask. I also read your words pretty carefully, and have changed my thoughts on some things as a result. Most of the contributors to this thread were fair and made good points. There were only a couple of idiots who chimmed in with all this tough guy talk just to hear their own voices and to stir up the pot.
What explanation is needed? I am not in the military so I guess I will let military experts answer that one: "The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict." According to Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, I Marine Expeditionary Force Commanding General, "We follow the Law of Armed Conflict and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountabilityâ€
That works for me!
Similar threads
