Qaeda Leader Beheads U.S. Civilian in Iraq

[Dis]

anybody know where I can still get the full version?

I saw one video. But it must have been chopped together. It only took about 10 seconds. And it didn't show no blood, which makes me think it's a fake.

why would I want to watch such a thing? Well I don't know exactly. I've always had a morbid fascination. I have already seen some photographs. It made me feel a little queasy. Although I have never actually vomited from seeing gruesome photos.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Don't hurt me because of this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FFA61A3-9C33-4597-A8D9-8079E91F2784.htm

interesting. So the U.S. killed this guy? Makes more sense I guess. Rile up the local populace. It explains the fact he was in custody.

[Chemical Ollie]

Why this sudden interest in watching sick snuff movies? You would never download and watch a home video of some pervert who cut the tits of a hooker he picked up. But when some Arabs do something similar, it's on prime time news and people actually want to see it all...

[SlowwHand]

Winmx has it. 7 MB.
I was going to send it to ....someone, but it's too large.
See the sawing! Hear the screams!
Much better than watching someone with a leash on.

[Chemical Ollie]

Did you get a hard-on?

[SlowwHand]

Ollie, you suck goatdick..

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ollie, you suck goatdick..

I love you too, Tex

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
I agree. And Americans should be outraged over the atrocities Bush & co. have carried out. I know they will never face international justice for there war crimes, but they should at least be punished in the US.

After all, isn't it general protocol to punish the leaders of soldiers who commit atrocities ? Did Hitler ever pull a trigger ? Did Milosovich do any of the torturing or shooting himself ?

There is a difference. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Sanchez, or anyone else in the chain of command actually gave orders to commit unlawful acts, then they are liable under the UCMJ if they would reasonably know those orders were unlawful. For example, if you randomly order the execution of prisoners, or set a policy where that is standard procedure, you are liable as if you'd pulled the trigger.

If there are no actual orders or ordered policy, then the question becomes whether or not you are negligent, or even criminally negligent (dereliction of duty). General Karpinski is an example where this seems to apply. As you get further up the chain of command, negligence gets more tenuous - Rumsfeld is so many levels removed from Karpinski, with no direct contact with her or any similar command level, that there's no way Rumsfeld can actually (legally) be negligent if he's not informed what's going on. Being informed that there are allegations and an ongoing investigation doesn't count. He would have to know precise facts about specific unlawful conduct, know that it's not being handled through the chain of command, and do nothing.

The closer you get to the actions, the more likely the negligence and dereliction of duty issues come into play, but even that isn't likely to go real far up the line, because people like Abizaid and Sanchez have a lot of things to deal with, and rely on information from their staffs and subordinate commanders.

It's a totally different ballgame if it can be shown that they set policy, but if it's just a lack of control, then the buck most likely stops around Karpinski's level.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ollie, you suck goatdick..

Chill, or you'd best get your ball and glove, because you'll be in the cooler for a good long time.

[SlowwHand]

Ok. Fine. But he started it!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There is a difference. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Sanchez, or anyone else in the chain of command actually gave orders to commit unlawful acts, then they are liable under the UCMJ if they would reasonably know those orders were unlawful.

Civilians can be subject to the UCMJ?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Civilians can be subject to the UCMJ?

No.

However there is a Code of Conduct for Federal Employees working for Dept. of Defense. Every 6 months at MI we received a copy in our shipyard newspaper. So under the Code if a DOD employee or Supervisor violated the Code, they can be held accountable.
I don't know if the Sec. and other Under Sec. are cover by the Code.

BTW if you read the Code and UCMJ, they are very close to being one in the same.

Case in point is that Monica should have been fired for Conduct not becoming of a Government Employee, Wasting Government Time and having sex on Government Property during working hours.

[Uncle Sparky]

There is a difference. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Sanchez, or anyone else in the chain of command actually gave orders to commit unlawful acts, then they are liable under the UCMJ if they would reasonably know those orders were unlawful. For example, if you randomly order the execution of prisoners, or set a policy where that is standard procedure, you are liable as if you'd pulled the trigger.

1)Bush gave the order to invade Iraq an invasion that violates international law.

2)They sent in American soldiers untrained in peacekeeping and interrogation to do those jobs.

3)Evidence is mounting that someone high up, probably Rumsfeld, ordered a general rounding up of Baathist members and sympathizers and ordered that the untrained soldiers interrogate them.

In a parliamentary system, a Minister in charge of a department would be expected to resign and the Prime Minister might resign if the cause were sufficient; of course you have a republican system which is different, but does that negate their culpability?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
1)Bush gave the order to invade Iraq an invasion that violates international law.

What provision? The earlier gulf war was terminated only by a cease fire, which incorporated in it's terms Iraq's compliance with all relevant UNSCRs.

2)They sent in American soldiers untrained in peacekeeping and interrogation to do those jobs.

There isn't "peacekeeping" to be done, there's occupation, and MI types are trained in interrogation methods.

3)Evidence is mounting that someone high up, probably Rumsfeld, ordered a general rounding up of Baathist members and sympathizers and ordered that the untrained soldiers interrogate them.

Ever see that deck of cards? Of course it was policy to detain members of the Baath party, and of course they were interrogated. There are no "untrained" soldiers, you're just grasping at straws, using "untrained" as a euphemism for "not doing things the way I think they should be done."

In a parliamentary system, a Minister in charge of a department would be expected to resign and the Prime Minister might resign if the cause were sufficient; of course you have a republican system which is different, but does that negate their culpability?

Resignations are political and symbolic. Culpability is legal. Two different matters entirely.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Civilians can be subject to the UCMJ?

Bush and Rumsfeld are civilians in the chain of command - they can't be prosecuted under the UCMJ, but issuing orders or setting policies which clearly violate the UCMJ (the applicable standard, since the orders would be carried out by Armed Forces personnel) would be grounds for impeachment, and/or criminal prosecution in the Federal courts.