Did you know that the "white taxi" was NOT a taxi and one of the dead had a map and 2.000 USD?

First, the footage of the white sedan clearly shows that the vehicle was not a "taxi." It did not display the required placards and in light of what is now known about the occupants, the vehicle was never intbended to act as a taxi.

it was filmed by a Scan Eagle

The IED was a propane tank that was remotely detonated, which means that it was observed. There weren't many places from where you could safely do that. Possibly from the car or the houses.

The corpses were examined by a nurse and not a doctor. NCI men asked to dig up a corps to investigate but were not allowed to by the family members.

3 AK-47 were confiscated (one a couple of days later given by the owner to Marines).

The bodies were moved (by family members) before pictures were taken. NCI men could find out where they were killed trough DNA.

There were more attacks in Haditha at the same time.

Bargewell Report pdf, June 15, 2006.

There are lots of conflicting reports. Only 1 survived the killings (Safah Yunis Salim Rasif) who said the marine who shot was smaller than herself. (she did not play dead but hid under the bed). In the other houses, no witnesses except the marines.
So, to prosecute them you have not enough evidence (they were not allowed to dig up a corps).
Did marines killed them? yes
On purpose? No
One witness in one room who could not identify the killer and the testimonials of the marines.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Did you know that the "white taxi" was NOT a taxi and one of the dead had a map and 2.000 USD?

This is not New York, many individuals with vehicles hire them out as taxis. How is money used to detonate an IED? What connection does this fact have to the killings?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The IED was a propane tank that was remotely detonated, which means that it was observed. There weren't many places from where you could safely do that. Possibly from the car or the houses.

What a load of Crap! You are making this up as you go along aren't you?
There were scores, possibly a 100s of possible places from which the IED could have been detonated. The whole area was surrounded by possible sites.


(1) Ayed House, 4 unarmed men shot to death
(2) Site of Taxi incident, 4 unarmed teens killed. No evidence of any connection to IED found
(3) Site of the IED
(4) Waleed House, 7 unarmed occupants shot including 3 women,
(5)Younis House, 8unarmed persons shot including 2 women and 4 children.

None of these locations revealed any possible connection with the IED or insurgents

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The corpses were examined by a nurse and not a doctor. NCI men asked to dig up a corps to investigate but were not allowed to by the family members.

The scenes were photographed and filmed, it was this evidence plus that of others that disproved the "grenade" lie. Even a nurse can tell the difference between a bullet wound and shrapnel and associated blast injuries from a grenade. There was no evidence of grenade blast or peppering of walls, in the houses concerned. We know that the people were deliberately shot and killed, digging up the bodies could not prove or disprove whether it was done intentionally or not, so the fact that the relatives did not want the bodies further defiled is of no consequence in the judgement.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

3 AK-47 were confiscated (one a couple of days later given by the owner to Marines).

None of which were illegal and none proven to have been recently fired.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The bodies were moved (by family members) before pictures were taken. NCI men could find out where they were killed trough DNA.

So?...

Originally Posted by VDKMS

So, to prosecute them you have not enough evidence (they were not allowed to dig up a corps). No consquence (senojekips)
Did marines killed them? yes
On purpose? No The evidence shows otherwise by collusion.(senojekips)
One witness in one room who could not identify the killer and the testimonials of the marines.

If you were being hunted down in your own house, knowing that you were about to be executed, do you think you'd take the time to notice the facial appearance of the person shooting at you? Remember they are all dressed similarly.

This event occurred at four locations, none of which had any evidence of involvement in the IED incident. Nor were empty casings or any other evidence from alleged insurgents firing on the marines found either.

The findings of the court have been universally condemned both Internationally and within the US.

Amos Guiora of the University of Utah SJ Quinney College of Law said. There appears to be a powerful disconnect between the acts committed in Haditha and the punishment meted. In the context of crime versus punishment, the perception is that justice was not served. The Article 32 charges [PDF] are extraordinarily distressing; however, because of the plea bargain there is no final, thorough adjudication of the facts.

Combat requires moraldecision-making, there's no getting around it. However, many leaders and soldiers feel unprepared for the life-or-death decisions they have had to make in "gray" circumstances. Their pre-deployment training consisted too often of black-or-white scenarios written by lawyers who've never had to make decisions in the fog of war. So, our soldiers learn by doing, trusting their gut instincts and character, and they generally do remarkably well.

Wars are full of events that would be war crimes by legal, media and other dominant but uninformed-about-war parties. I've noticed that soldiers who are doing the fighting have their own set of ethical standards. In most cases and most situations, their ethical norms are consistent with what is expected publicly of them. Yet there are times and situations in which soldiers judge "what's right" on the ground to be much different than the public ethics. Sometimes these actions violate the "public ethics" (and some the Laws of Land Warfare)...yet I've heard well reasoned, convincing moral arguments for them. The problem is, our soldiers cannot ever say publicly what they did, much less offer their reasons, without making themselves liable to legal proceedings. As a result, the next generations of soldiers will continue to be unprepared for the complex, difficult moral decisions they will face in war. It's a catch-22.

So, the profession of arms has two moral codes, the public one, based on black-and-white legal rules, that work much of the time; and a private code, known only by those who have to do the messy work of war. It's not healthy psychologically to have made difficult moral decisions that you cannot talk about publicly for fear of being punished. It's also dangerous to have such "unspoken" rules of war that differ from what soldiers are taught in formal training. For example, inexperienced young leaders can have trouble enforcing standards when they are not confident that they know the true standards.

Originally Posted by 42RM

Combat requires moral decision-making, etc....

No one denies that, because 99.99% of combatants manage to do it without a great deal of fuss. Sometimes a person may "snap" and for the want of a better term "run amok". But here we see a cohesive team, all involved to one degree or another, if not the actual killers, they attempted to cover for them and perjured themselves to the court. That in itself, indicates that there was some form of collusion both prior to and after the offence.

Yes, it's all very noble to think "there but for the grace of god go I",... but you didn't, and neither did the vast majority. The same applies to many crimes, none of which get the same lack of consideration shown here.

When discussing deployed soldiers' actions, it´s often from conventions and directives; was the action legal or not? But for the soldier on the ground, it´s not enough to relate to whether a given action is legal or not. There must be a full set of ethical considerations. That an action is legal does not in any way indicate that it should be performed.

In extreme cases, soldiers are put in situations where they should be able to take other people's lives. It requires that the action makes sense. It should not just be legal; the soldier must also be able to live with it afterwards.

During my missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we did not have a formalized set of ethical considerations from above. I had therefore made ​​my own set of rules that I controlled the use of force by:

1. To consider whether it should be performed, the action should provide a gain in the short and long term.
2. The act must be lawful in relation to our mandate
3. The Marine who pulled the trigger should be able to live with himself afterwards. So it was he who ultimately made the decision whether to shoot or not.

I was confident that my Marines fund the best solution in the situation and I supported their decisions afterwards. Furthermore, I tried to articulate the act as a joint action. The fact that a Marine had shot and killed someone meant that the Troop had been deployed together. And all Troop operations were my responsibility.

Originally Posted by 42RM

When discussing deployed soldiers' actions, it´s often from conventions and directives; was the action legal or not? But for the soldier on the ground, it´s not enough to relate to whether a given action is legal or not. There must be a full set of ethical considerations. That an action is legal does not in any way indicate that it should be performed.

In extreme cases, soldiers are put in situations where they should be able to take other people's lives. It requires that the action makes sense. It should not just be legal; the soldier must also be able to live with it afterwards.

During my missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we did not have a formalized set of ethical considerations from above. I had therefore made ​​my own set of rules that I controlled the use of force by:

1. To consider whether it should be performed, the action should provide a gain in the short and long term.
2. The act must be lawful in relation to our mandate
3. The Marine who pulled the trigger should be able to live with himself afterwards. So it was he who ultimately made the decision whether to shoot or not.

I was confident that my Marines fund best solution in the situation and I supported their decisions afterwards. Furthermore, I tried to articulate the act as a joint action. The fact that a soldier had shot and killed someone meant that the Troop had been deployed together. And all Troop operations were my responsibility.

I can live with your ethical views, however I seriously doubt that had the accused persons in this case had your views, there would have been a massacre like we see here.

Nobody is saying that combatants have an easy row to hoe, nor do they expect anything unrealistic from them (other than perhaps expecting them to kill people in the name of their country). If these things were excusable, there would not be laws put in place such as there are. The main problem here is with those who interpreted the laws and the fact that the sentence they imposed seemingly having no relationship to the severity of the crime.

As I said earlier, there is no way that i will ever believe that Wuterich was solely responsible, everything points to a tacit agreement being in place before the event this is further exacerbated by the obvious collusion by all, to pervert the course of justice during the trial.

Originally Posted by senojekips

This is not New York, many individuals with vehicles hire them out as taxis. How is money used to detonate an IED? What connection does this fact have to the killings?

Taxis must be registered even in Iraq. The marines had to watch for a white car, and after the IED explosion suddenly comes a white car.
You cannot detonate an IED with money but you can buy the components with it and 2.000 USD is a lot of money in Iraq.

What a load of Crap! You are making this up as you go along aren't you?
There were scores, possibly a 100s of possible places from which the IED could have been detonated. The whole area was surrounded by possible sites.

They took fire from house 1 (Waleed House) and a marine saw someone running from house 1 to house 2 (Yunis house).

None of these locations revealed any possible connection with the IED or insurgents

When you take fire from a location and/or people running then there is the possibility that there is a connection to the IED explosion.

The scenes were photographed and filmed, it was this evidence plus that of others that disproved the "grenade" lie. Even a nurse can tell the difference between a bullet wound and shrapnel and associated blast injuries from a grenade. There was no evidence of grenade blast or peppering of walls, in the houses concerned. We know that the people were deliberately shot and killed, digging up the bodies could not prove or disprove whether it was done intentionally or not, so the fact that the relatives did not want the bodies further defiled is of no consequence in the judgement.

Iraqi photographs, presented by the media as evidence, was useles in court.
A nurse is not a medical examiner.
The body could be helpful to determine who fired the shots. Of course it also can reveal that the victim himself had fired.

None of which were illegal and none proven to have been recently fired.

Not at that time, but they could have been used in prior attacks.

So?...

moving of evidence.

If you were being hunted down in your own house, knowing that you were about to be executed, do you think you'd take the time to notice the facial appearance of the person shooting at you? Remember they are all dressed similarly.

Do you think you take time for that when you are under attack after an IED explosion?

This event occurred at four locations, none of which had any evidence of involvement in the IED incident. Nor were empty casings or any other evidence from alleged insurgents firing on the marines found either.

family members of the victims also threw away the marine cartridge-cases.

The findings of the court have been universally condemned both Internationally and within the US.

Just as there are the ones who support it.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Taxis must be registered even in Iraq. The marines had to watch for a white car, and after the IED explosion suddenly comes a white car.
You cannot detonate an IED with money but you can buy the components with it and 2.000 USD is a lot of money in Iraq.

You can buy a lot of other things besides IED materials, did the money have a note saying that it was for illegal purposes, did the marines read the note before executuing the man with the maney plus three others? No. You are in dreamland as usual. If you read the official report the taxi is listed as a Taxi so much for your "Taxis have to be registered". Even the image you provided lists the vehicle as a Taxi. So much for another of you crackpot diversions.

And just for interest, I thought you might like to read this:

Originally Posted by VDKMS

They took fire from house 1 (Waleed House) and a marine saw someone running from house 1 to house 2 (Yunis house).

When you take fire from a location and/or people running then there is the possibility that there is a connection to the IED explosion.

It was alleged that they thought they took fire from somewhere, no evidence, not a single bullet casing, or anything else was found in the house. When there has been a large explosion even civilians run for cover, but that does not mean that they should be executed in their homes. Nor should the occupants of any home regardless of whether the home was used as a firing place or not (and in this case there was no evidence to support it), except the verbal allegation of the discredited marines, so you can forget that too.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Iraqi photographs, presented by the media as evidence, was useles in court.
A nurse is not a medical examiner.
The body could be helpful to determine who fired the shots. Of course it also can reveal that the victim himself had fired.

I'm not a medical examiner but I can look at the photos and deduce that no grenade was detonated within a room.You are playing idiots again aren't you?

This is not what grenades do. Plenty of blood splatter and bullet marks but not a shrapnel mark to be seen on the furniture. There may have been grenades used, but it appears from the evidence that most of the people were deliberately executed by multiple gunshots.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Not at that time, but they could have been used in prior attacks.

So you argue that the might have been used in previous attacks,... I guess that clears the way to execute every person in Iraq as they might have been involved in previous attacks?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

moving of evidence.

I guess the preservation of evidence would have been high on their list of priorities having just had most of their families executed and their home turned into a slaughter house?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Do you think you take time for that when you are under attack after an IED explosion?

You never answered the question, your reply had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

family members of the victims also threw away the marine cartridge-cases.

Just because you have had your family executed does not mean that you leave the house like a slaughter house. Not even in Iraq. And anyway, you have alread admitted that you agree the marines shot the occupants. The uncovered attempts at collusion destroy the credibility of the marines, so we come back to the title of the thread. The judgement was deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Just as there are the ones who support it.

Find an emminent professor of law that states the decision was fair and just. Roland Freisler doesn't count.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You can buy a lot of other things besides IED materials, did the money have a note saying that it was for illegal purposes, did the marines read the note before executuing the man with the maney plus three others? No. You are in dreamland as usual. If you read the official report the taxi is listed as a Taxi so much for your "Taxis have to be registered". Even the image you provided lists the vehicle as a Taxi. So much for another of you crackpot diversions.

The reason why the image list the vehicle as "taxi" is because everyone would know about what vehicle we were talking about and not as"proof". It was a white Opel sedan.

Fron the Scan Eagle Video:
"1. 051119_0759/06:30-11:20 (See Segment 1: Windows or AVI formats.)
Intro footage to the aftermath of IED and suppression of occupants in the white sedan at the location of Chestnut & Viper. Footage is significant for several reasons. First, the footage of the white sedan clearly shows that the vehicle was not a "taxi." It did not display the required placards and in light of what is now known about the occupants, the vehicle was never intended to act as a taxi.
Next, the status of the doors on the vehicle point to at least one occupant intending to conceal his actions. The passenger door behind the driver is closed. This points to an occupant sliding across the seat to exit from the side that would have provided the most cover.
Additionally, none of the occupants are located in the street and are all found in the vicinity of a dirt pile and a wall that would have provided cover."


Here is a guess of the positions, remember that all the action took place within a mile radius.

It was alleged that they thought they took fire from somewhere, no evidence, not a single bullet casing, or anything else was found in the house. When there has been a large explosion even civilians run for cover, but that does not mean that they should be executed in their homes. Nor should the occupants of any home regardless of whether the home was used as a firing place or not (and in this case there was no evidence to support it), except the verbal allegation of the discredited marines, so you can forget that too.

NCIS recovered, bagged and labeled 7.62x39mm rounds from the Marines original position. An intelligence officer was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day's action - material which he had amassed while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS. It was exculpatory evidence.

I'm not a medical examiner but I can look at the photos and deduce that no grenade was detonated within a room.You are playing idiots again aren't you?
This is not what grenades do. Plenty of blood splatter and bullet marks but not a shrapnel mark to be seen on the furniture. There may have been grenades used, but it appears from the evidence that most of the people were deliberately executed by multiple gunshots.

Go with that photo to court and the defense will brake you down in a microsecond. When was that photo taken and by who and where? Is that blood or paint? That are only a few questions that you have to answer.

So you argue that the might have been used in previous attacks,... I guess that clears the way to execute every person in Iraq as they might have been involved in previous attacks?

Don't be ridiculous. You forget that they were fired upon by AK-47's and a IED exploded. That does not happen to every civilian owning a AK-47.

I guess the preservation of evidence would have been high on their list of priorities having just had most of their families executed and their home turned into a slaughter house?

Like it or not but the moving of evidence can have grave consequences in a trial.

You never answered the question, your reply had nothing to do with it.

Here's my answer : I'll will never forget his face!

Just because you have had your family executed does not mean that you leave the house like a slaughter house. Not even in Iraq. And anyway, you have alread admitted that you agree the marines shot the occupants. The uncovered attempts at collusion destroy the credibility of the marines, so we come back to the title of the thread. The judgement was deeply flawed.

Those people were shot by marines, yes. But that's not enough to get someone convicted. You need evidence that can get through the defense of the accused. The prosecutor never had the hard evidence to win this case. After they found exculpatory evidence their case was lost.

Find an emminent professor of law that states the decision was fair and just. Roland Freisler doesn't count.

Roland Freisler has nothing to do with this.

Lt. Col. Paul Ware, an experienced Marine Corps prosecutor and judge : "No trier of fact can conclude that Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill," Ware wrote in his October 2007 report. "The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited and almost all witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

"In the post-9/11 context, the U.S. armed forces are under constant need to demonstrate professionalism and push back against allegations that they are not adhering to the law of war," said Diane Marie Amann, a professor of international law and human rights at the University of Georgia.

"I don't see a legal change that's going to fix this problem," Allen S. Weiner, a professor of international law at Stanford, said of the difficulty of distinguishing innocent civilians from similarly clad insurgents like Al Qaeda militants fighting on ideological or religious grounds rather than on behalf of a nation.

Almost none of what you have said is included in the evidence for the Section 32 Charges, nor was proven. Remember we are looking at a blatant case of an attempted cover up here followed by a whitewash trial once the issue was discovered neither of which can be denied.

The fact as to whether the vehicle was a Taxi or not has absolutely no bearing on the events that occurred, but regardless of your denials, it was referred to as a taxi and the court, even your own image has it labeled as a "taxi". You are merely trying (unsuccessfully) to derail the debate as you always do.

And your rather lame quote of a US marine prosecutor, is the closest thing to equivalent of asking Roland Freisler about Nazi atrocities.
The quote by Allen Weiner and Diane Amann did not state that he thought the finding was either fair or just. Another diversion,.. as is virtually everything you have raised, as no one skerrick of it denies the fact that the sentence given was farcical.