http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6360261.stm

Funny how this actually supports the need for these things to be done in public so that justice can not only be done, but also be seen to be done.

What you are obviously unaware aware of is the International Criminal Court (which Britain, but not the US, has subscribed to) came into play in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

The case could have been referred to the ICC if Britain had not been shown to have exercised due process.

These men have now been cleared by a court of law, their records are unblemished, but do not forget that others have yet to be sentenced for their part (which they have admitted).

Whether it is distasteful for servicemen to appear in a court for a suspected offence committed during wartime is another matter.

There are jokes in the British Military about the legal briefings they receive pre deployment and the involement of the RMPs frontline, but most acknowledge that it serves to prove that there are checks in place to try and help prevent British forces commiting crimes and to ensure that there is no cover up of any suspected crimes.

Not sure where the guilty until proven innocent comment comes from. Is that the case with everyone who goes to court? The last I checked, the British legal system (which most are based on) did allow for innocent until proven guilty.

Again, another point that could be debated in a meaningful way, but that ustrader has discredited with his own version of sensationalist journalism and headlining taking comments and stories out of context.

Please, the whole Iraqi occupation was based on the very notion of "Guilty until proven innocent".

BTW, are we referring to John Murtha in this context as:

1. John Murtha and the Jean Schmidt “coward” controversy in which Jean Schmidt falsely 'quoted' a fellow Marine in an attempt to say that John Murtha (a respected, decorated Vietnam Vet) was a coward because he was critical of policy in Iraq and suggested a withdrawal of US troops. FWIG, she withdrew that comment and Ohio Representative Danny Bubp (who she claimed to be quoting) stated he had not made any reference to John Murth at all. ?

2. John Murtha's comments about the initial investigation into Haditha incident finding that US troops had killed innocent civilians. He was heavily criticised by conservatives and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation. From what I gather, "as details of the Pentagon investigation's findings have emerged, they have been consistent with Murtha's characterization" and "On 21 December 2006, the US military charged Wuterich with 12 counts unpremeditated murder against individuals and one count of the murder of six people "while engaged in an act inherently dangerous to others". Is that what you meant by the guilty until proven innocent comment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha

Just need to be clear about the way in which you meant this thread.

That to pre judge those who question the conduct of the war in Iraq as cowards is wrong?

or

That to claim that those who call for accountability in our armed forces are 'military bashers' with no experience who don't know what they are talking about is also wrong. ?

You see, that is the problem with premeditated mendacity in ulterior motivation it creates this type of zoomorphism.

and I am sure that you have no intention of distorting his words (and possibly those of others) to characterise this man as some sort of 'beast' for having the audacity to question the conduct of the war. You must feel really upset that an ex military man not only questions the conduct of the war, but also does it as a Democrat!!



You very funny man - me love you long time.

You seem to claim to be the only person in the world not to have any preconceptions, prejudice or political motivations. You must be one very liberal neo con!!

Again, the idea that you think the military above the law is at odds with not only all reason, but also democracy itself.

Has it occured to you that I may have had a point when I mentioned that the court marshall process has possibly saved these men from an appearence at the ICC.

Have you somehow missed the part of the story that shows that one man has admitted guilt and 2 others remain on charges? In case you did I will give you another article that goes more into that side

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-repor...age.jsp?id=4609

As an extra, watch the interview with Sir Gen Mike Jackson (former head of the British Army - including in Iraq- and someone who knows Col Mendonca) from about 5:10 into the report - he does not seem to share your hysteria which is strange as he is no longer a government employee and therefore under no obligation to toe the party line.

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=4838

I quote

"This is a matter of evidence, not a matter of politics or personal view" approx 8:28

In fact, he has criticised the Government's running of the armed forces as recently as December

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215296.stm

and has an exemplary record of military leadership in combat. He is one of the most popular (amongst the troops) senior officers that Britian has had in many a year so is very unlikely to be reflecting the complete opposite of to the views of those on the ground.

Your skills for self delusion when it comes to the infallibity of the military and the fallability of the rest of the population really are unsurpassed.

You do like the word 'mendacity' don't you. Let me know which 'word of the day' toilet roll you learned that from and I will make sure I get another for your birthday. Alternatively, why not try misrepresentation, subreption or guile.

Better yet, why not save us all a lot of time and use the term "Liar, Liar pants on fire!"

"And all along I thought you were one them, compassion hormonals who assumes one wrong does not make a right, only to find out your just one another of those Ji, Ju, Na! gliet, tae kon mai piaw, types, what a disappointment..."

Oh ok.

My trite little friend, beyond your evident lack of deductive ability causing you to regularly deduce in th wrong about me and my positions, you have this sad propensity to hyper-ventalate in grasp of an issue and then re-invent its circumstance and what was said and not said afar from what is in the page.

You will not find, my slay of rebuke of Murtha's voice, was measured in anything I have said at all against his position as to the Iraq war. Though I stringly have as much right as he to disagree with him.

It is, as a citizen, as Vietnam Veteran and as Congressmen his duty to voice any view which he wishes to espouses as to the war as is mine if I si desire. It does not make him any more right and than it does not make him wrong nor me either. Yet, if you look at his history, he was once a a very vocal and loud voice of disdain for the cut and run crowd. Now he is one of their poster children. I do love consistency don't you?

I ridicule him and as do the majority of Marines both current and former who have acknowledge publicly his disowning from out Corp, not as to your ignorance supposition as to his position on the war, many Veterans take that postion, in well earned right.

But as to is his public pronouncements of unquestionable guilt, 8 months then and 14 months now before a charge had even been laid upon the table, clearly in pre-election political motivation, which acted unquestionable to prejudiced and inflicted a public bias, no matter, if in the end right or wrong, towards the Hidtha Marines, who at the time the Military said clearly their investigation was far from concluded.

He is currently being sued and may Marines as myself have contributed to the effort. The suit is for acts of liable, defamation, discrimmnation and inflamed prejudice of the 8 Marines whose trails even today are not concluded, who at the time of his Public pronouncement of their unquestinable guilt, not of mere allegation of perhaps wrong doing, before a fact was laid upon the table and or a charge ever was made nearly a year before any were.

Kind of like the Left in the UK who convicted so many of your own, way before they were even charged and as you know, some, perhaps equally as many, were found not quilty, dispite the Press and the left's pre- disposed presumptions of guilt and convictions.

This is ridicule is in no way a idiom that there is a free ticket to commit crimes as a person in Military service, merely, let the facts and outcome not be decide by ignorant mob and political hacks who have anything but justice in mind.

You know, for a Euro you are really slow on the uptick as to what is actually said and not said, perhaps glasses would help?


I still see your are over wrought again in this obession of the sad events as the L/CPL's Fratrcide event.. Sorry, but as of yet, all you have said has not change a mm of the reality, the situation nor the eventual outcome now has it?..

I see no need to keep discussing an issue that has been resolved as far as it ever will be, So why do you so obession on it...Perhaps some time examining the dead British Troops killed by their own or allies, even not american, all over Europe these lst 250 years, will enlight you and cure you of this over zealous obession as to a regretable but sad reality that mere Military service in war and or peace has risk of accidents.

Good Luck..

Maybe you meant to link to another article then, I do not see anywhere in the article you linked to where there was an expression of belief that any soldier involved (other than the one who has already pleaded guilty) was "guilty until proven innocent".

In fact the article uses expressions such as 'claims that' etc etc which are perfectly balanced enough. It also mentions that there are people who believe that the whole process has been a waste of tax payers' money - hardly an assumption of guilt.



If you are happy to categorically state that your opinion of him is not related to his current stance on the war, then I will accept your clarification of your position on face value. You will understand that some of your previous posts appear to demonise anyone who does not agree with the war or its conduct.

As for the consistency question, I would offer that he is entitled to call for an end to the war if he thinks that the war has been so badly planned and executed that to continue would be futile as he may feel the situation is irretrevably lost without huge further losses and outside the interests of the US. A position he may not have taken if the peace had been better executed (the war was won very well) - do not assume where I stand on this - you may be surprised.



You obviously feel strongly about this and I will not try to belittle your position on the matter as you, of course, have the right to your own opinion.

However, as you state yourself, that does not make him any less right than you. You may find it distasteful and his comments premature, but my understanding is that his intial comments have largely been borne out by the investigation. That may be how you see the Hidtha court marshall, but give me evidence of similar pronouncements by UK politicians or media in this UK court marshall.

Where we really disagree is in your insistence that this UK court marshall and article you link to are a "Murtha-ism". They are not. They are part of the due process and this has been shown by the dismissal of charges against these men. Surely you are not suggesting that to charge someone is to presume guilt and you appear to be completely unaware that there has been no coverage here assuming the guilt of the soldiers involved and much that questioned the need for the court marshall.

You have yet to show me anywhere where guilt was presumed. I have given you examples of the opposite and you have yet to give me your thoughts on the part in this of the ICC, the channel 4 report and the interview with Sir Gen Mike Jackson.

How you expect me to take your counter argument with anything other than a pinch of salt when you avoid addressing my points is beyond me.



Again, do me the courtesy of evidence for this argument as just saying so does not make it right.



One thing we actually agree on then, but show me the evidence that this has happened in this UK case.



Only ever been accused of serious 'beer goggles' before. Perhaps a bit of evidence of the presumed guilt in this case would help my vision.



Now I really am confused. Where did I mention LCoH Hull in this thread?

I responded to your charge that the court marshall and article you linked to were evidence of presumed guilt against the military by 'the left' / the UK and challenged you on it and you accuse me of being motivated by a thread that I am still waiting for your latest thoughts on (in the actual thread).

This was nothing to do with fratrcide - it was about the death (in British custody) of a man who was found to have 93 wounds on his body. One soldier has admitted culpability and 2 remain on trial - where on earth did I mention the A10 incident?

The thread was one you started, linked to an article of your choosing and has the title



Please show me the evidence of "quick to judge" and let me know which other case the 'UK' presumed guilt as you obviously believe that your motives in posting this thread were nothing to do with our previous 'Friendly Fire' debate.

You made the connection, not me!

PS I love the way I am your trite 'little friend' - feels so much nicer than being a pinko leftie liberal whiner! You must be warming to me

“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong”

Affirmative argument in this case - the court martial process that has been followed in this case is fair, equitable and is in the interests of the UK personnel involved not least because it keeps them under UK jusrisdiction preventing a referral to the ICC whilst protecting the image and Britain and it's forces abroad against charges of abuse and excesses in their operations in Iraq. The innocent have been/will be aquitted and the guilty will be found to be so in a just process established and refined over hundreds of years Huhh looking into how the effects of this court marshall have been positive for Britain and her armed forces

Negative argument - this is all a 'guilty until proven innocent' Murtha-ist attack on men in uniform and has no positive results for anyone as it is just the leftie media bashing the military and somehow making the military court marshall its own men by fabricating evidence (all court marshall referrals have to pass the evidence test) all the while risking morale amongst forces personnel serving and due to serve in Iraq. The UK government (who hate any bad Iraq related publicity) has conspired with their opponents to besmirch the name of a senior officer having recruited their most distinguished ex head of the armed forces to help defend this anti war plot despite his acknowledged previous working relationship with Col Mendonca. - ustrader trashing the legal process of a foreign military and ally as well as that country's most respected broadcaster and former head of the armed forces.

Leave you to decide how accurate your cartoon is now... in the absence of you providing any substantive counter argument.

It appears to me as it is, Rep Murtha knows well how a war was lost and is proud of his service in that loss above all else. He is an embarassment in war time, either he welcomed his own retreat without honor from Viet Nam or is selfish enough to want less glory heaped upon the current warriors than were given him. How else can you explain his vehement calls for withdrawal rather than more troops, more ammo, or more lethality? I hope it's not politics, but am willing to put him on the Duke Cunningham ash pile because either he belongs there or I do not understand his thinking. A lot of what I have heard from this guy is either unintelligent or unintelligible, go figure he's the Semper reported Marine in congress. He is not the only former marine in congress, just the only former marine that gets reported, the rest appear to disagree with him

Now I'M the one who started and carried out the investigation and court marshall of these men. My God, I have more power than I thought.

Face it big boy, you screwed up.

You started the thread. You used the term 'another UK Murtha-ism' and you are the one arrogant, stupid and disrespectful enough to question the due process of law in this country.

Either stop being such an ingnorant cnut in these matters (like the investigation was my idea) or actually address my points: (I'll repeat them again for you)



You are insulting the military, government and people of Britain if you think they court marshall their men with no evidence.

Just cos you think it is wrong, does not mean that a legal process was not followed. For you to delete



is particularly offensive.

You are self delusional and all your opinions on these matters are formed by the treatment of you and your comrades by the AMERICAN people and media. The complete lack of respect that this gives you for British MILITARY law makes you all the more pathetic.

I have lost all regard for your self obsessed, "woe is me", unappreciated disabled war vet. It means feck all if it means you are unable to see beyond your own self pity so much that you insult the military, law and people of a foreign ally just because your own people treated you so badly.