U.s. Soldiers Say They Executed Iraqis On Riverbank: Report

[greenminer]

link.

This got under my skin. But not really sure how I feel about it.

The men each described killing one of the Iraqi detainees, as directed by First Sergeant John E. Hatley, according to the statements. Hatley shot two other detainees with a pistol in the back of the head, Mayo and Leahy told investigators, according to the NYT. U.S. soldiers cannot harm enemy combatants once they are disarmed and in custody, the NYT said.

........................................

According to Leahy's statement, cited by the NYT, Army officials directed Hatley's convoy to release the men because there was insufficient evidence to detain them.

"First Sergeant Hatley then made the call to take the detainees to a canal and kill them," as retribution for the deaths of two soldiers from the unit, Leahy said in his statement.

[UNTflyer]

I'll tell you how I feel about it. Anyone who shoots a handcuffed and unarmed man in the back of the head is a coward.

If we need to execute prisoners, they need to hold a fair trial.

[Coffee and TV]

Sickening.

This totally crosses the line from what happens in war and what happens in normal civilization. If the detainees are released because of lack of evidence, then that alone presumes their innocence. You can't simply use them as scapegoats for some revenge plot. Absolutely disgusting. I hope this Hartley character is put on trial for murder.

[drex]

Not condoning it. Not saying it did not happen. However, Reuters and the New York Times are not news outlets I trust.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Sickening.

This totally crosses the line from what happens in war and what happens in normal civilization. If the detainees are released because of lack of evidence, then that alone presumes their innocence. You can't simply use them as scapegoats for some revenge plot. Absolutely disgusting. I hope this Hartley character is put on trial for murder.

---The other two are very little better.... Soldiers are to obey only lawful orders..... and this wasn't one. If fact the order from Hatley's superiors was to release them.... which wasn't done. Their only defense was that Hartley was going to shoot them if they did not do as he said.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Not condoning it. Not saying it did not happen. However, Reuters and the New York Times are not news outlets I trust.

Fox News? Free Republic?

[meangreendork]

Not condoning it. Not saying it did not happen. However, Reuters and the New York Times are not news outlets I trust.

The NYT? You sure you don't mean the New York Post?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Not condoning it. Not saying it did not happen. However, Reuters and the New York Times are not news outlets I trust.

.

---Yeah, Fox is THE credible sourse... Geraldo was reporting about Iraq battles that did not exist and even once claimed to be on the scene of one of them. They have reported that Obama attended to a Medrasa (Islamic "terrorist" type school) which wasn't true., and I think it has been mentioned by them that he used the Koran to take the Oath of office (not true). They do get a few things right but in general you can't trust their info to be correct.

---I am betting that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, and a whole bunch other ones you do not trust either..... They tell you what is true or the truth as it appears to be ---- and not what you want to hear and hope is true. .

Edited August 27, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

They have reported that Obama attended to a Medrasa (Islamic "terrorist" type school)

No, what happened was they reported on an Insight magazine article (owned by the Washington Times) written by an investigative reporter who claimed that Hillary Clinton's campaign was trying to dig up dirt to show that Obama attended a madrassa. It was retracted the following week, should have never been reported in the first place, but Fox did not do the original story.

I think it has been mentioned by them that he used the Koran to take the Oath of office

No, they've never claimed that Obama did this. There was a story about Congressman Keith Elison using a Koran for taking his oath in 2007, which was absolutely true.

BTW, I have no problems with news organizations having an agenda... but to think that any news source reports the entire truth in an unbiased fashion is naive. Look at several sources.

I watch CNN and Fox. I listen to NPR and Rush. I read the NYT and the WSJ. And in the end, I form my views based on several points of view.

Edited August 27, 2008 by UNTflyer

[Mean Green 93-98]

---I am betting that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, and a whole bunch other ones you do not trust either..... They tell you what is true or the truth as it appears to be to us who are afflicted with a severe liberal slant ---- and not what you right-minded Americans have realized to be true. .

Fixed.

Not necessarily defending Fox News. They have made their fair share of gaffes, as have the others, and are also slanted at times in their reporting. But to deny that those sources drex and you cited often report with an agenda in mind is just plain to be in denial.

[UNTflyer]

Regarding the Obama "Madrassa" story, CNN reported:

"The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs."

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

true.

BTW, I have no problems with news organizations having an agenda... but to think that any news source reports the entire truth in an unbiased fashion is naive. Look at several sources.

I watch CNN and Fox. I listen to NPR and Rush. I read the NYT and the WSJ. And in the end, I form my views based on several points of view.

That is the way to go... no one source is perfect.

I do have a problem with a news organization that has an agenda....... it is not a news organization but a propoganda network such as existed in the USSR.

Not a great source but this is film clips from Fox. .....LOL... can't do better quickly. Note: It does say Fox news at the bottom of a lot of them.

Edited August 27, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[greenminer]

I get two opinions and then ya'll embed a thread about internet credibility.

internet news credibility. on a message board.

I thought I could count on game week to end offseason debates.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

This isn't the football thread.

[Green Mean]

Not condoning it. Not saying it did not happen. However, Reuters and the New York Times are not news outlets I trust.

How about BBC? Al Jazeera?

[Coffee and TV]

Fixed.

Not necessarily defending Fox News. They have made their fair share of gaffes, as have the others, and are also slanted at times in their reporting. But to deny that those sources drex and you cited often report with an agenda in mind is just plain to be in denial.

LOL

You seen the convention coverage this past week? The main stream media has been absolute garbage. Brian Williams just let Rudy 9/11 spout off whatever he wanted without any kind of rebuttle. The spin bandits (on both sides) have been the majority of the Democratic Convention coverage, so if they're a mouthpiece of the left they're doing a terrible job.

[meangreendork]

LOL

You seen the convention coverage this past week? The main stream media has been absolute garbage. Brian Williams just let Rudy 9/11 spout off whatever he wanted without any kind of rebuttle. T

Rudy Giuliani cracks me up. I'm so happy this guy never made it too far for so many reasons.

[EagleD]

The Republicans "Ministry o f Truth"

PBS & NPR are the best choices for independent, unbiased news. Just my biased opinion.

Back to the topic at hand. If this story is true, then it is atrocious!

Edited August 27, 2008 by EagleD

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

"Ministry of Truth"....... LOL..

Maybe they should read more and talk less.

[meangreendork]

"It makes me wonder if Hannity has anything above a 4th-grade level education when it comes to the history of totalitarian movements."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

"Just consider this the Ministry of Truth."

Didn't the old Iraqi government have a Ministry of Information? You know, that one guy telling people coalition forces were being mauled as they were in fact, sitting on the minstry's doorstep.

[yyz28]

That is the way to go... no one source is perfect.

I do have a problem with a news organization that has an agenda....... it is not a news organization but a propoganda network such as existed in the USSR.

Not a great source but this is film clips from Fox. .....LOL... can't do better quickly. Note: It does say Fox news at the bottom of a lot of them.

That video is classic... ...and doesn't prove a SINGLE THING. They didn't show anyone hosting a news show reporting wrong things about Obama. They only catch commentators and guests giving their opinions. ...you find similar attacks on Obama by commentators and guests on other networks... ...you also see attacks on McCain on other Networks... AND ON FOX!

...back to the subject at hand, if it happend, it's wrong, no matter what your politics. These soldiers should be dealt with accordingly.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I don't know if it happened or not...and I still don't. It seems to me that if there were very much truth in it the global socialists would have it splattered all of the news media. It would become the equivalent of the Mi Lai massacre.

If you see two of your buddies killed and you track down the perpetrators and kill them then that's part of war. I find it hard to believe that 99.9% of any military unit would kill an unarmed, handcuffed person.

By the way, didn't someone use a former Clinton speechwriter as a complaintant about Sean Hannity? There is no such thing as unbiased media. Flyer has the right idea. Read or listen to all sides and then decide for yourself.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I don't know if it happened or not...and I still don't. It seems to me that if there were very much truth in it the global socialists would have it splattered all of the news media. It would become the equivalent of the Mi Lai massacre.

If you see two of your buddies killed and you track down the perpetrators and kill them then that's part of war. I find it hard to believe that 99.9% of any military unit would kill an unarmed, handcuffed person.

By the way, didn't someone use a former Clinton speechwriter as a complaintant about Sean Hannity? There is no such thing as unbiased media. Flyer has the right idea. Read or listen to all sides and then decide for yourself.

99.9% would not ... as you said.... It is the 0.01 % that is the problem.. The prison in Iraq, Mai Lai masacre in Nam and others. Opposing this type of conduct is not being unpatriotic as some try to picture it.

---Flyer has the Right Idea..???? .. I don't think a news network with an "agenda" is ever the right idea... Ask anyone in any journalism department. Report the truth or at least what you believe to be true and confirm your facts. Nixon did not have much use of the Washington Post either....but they kept digging and were in the right. A media source that just makes up things and leaves out what THEY don't want you to know is not a news organization and is a real problem. That is what the media did in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

I do agree with the one thing he said (read/listen to several sourses) and I said so.

Edited August 28, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[tulsafanintexas]

GO TO YAHOO MESSENGER

[KRAM1]

I would 100% agree that the killing of handcuffed and blindfolded prisioners is not to be tolerated under any conditions. However, war is not a pretty or nice thing. People are trying to kill each other and "stuff" happens. Go look into some of the "events" in WWII, Korea, Viet nam...hey even the Civil War and the Revolutionary War or the War for Texas Independance (aka Goliad) and you will find such things. Totally unacceptable, but isn't war in itself something that most folks would find an unacceptable solution to international problems? In theory at least that is true, in reality, not so much. As a veteran myself, the son of a WWII veteran, the grandson of a WWI veteran, the father of a veteran daughter and a current Navy doctor (and Navy doctor daughter-in-law), the uncle of a two tour Army Iraqi War vet (heading now to Afghanistan for #3), I have a perspective on this thing that is a bit "up close and personal". As many of you have I am most certain.

War is nasty business and "stuff" happens,which, of course, does not make it RIGHT. This type of activity is not RIGHT! But, with instant news and a media that seems to like to show our soliders in every unfavorable light it can, I await the real facts before deciding for myself how this actually "went down". I can tell you, that in the heat of battle, when your guys are being shot and killed, emotions run pretty darn high. What looks like murder in times of peace may not be actually so in times of war. I have also learned from my Viet Nam era service days, that the media rarely gets the story 100% correct and often does have an "agenda". This "agenda" can influence how the military and the civilian authorities moved forward in their investigations, charges, etc. Just recently some Marines who were first charged with murder in Iraq had their charges downgraded after an extensive review and investigation of the matter.

So, I will wait to see how this develops. Not saying it did not happen, not saying what has been reported isn't 100% true, but I await the "fianl story" as they say. If you trust the media on this sort of stuff you are sadly misguided in you views. Give it time, we'll see how it develops. Been there...Done that...when it comes to the treatment of our military by the media. Not all, of course.

GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THE COALITION FORCES AND THE CIVILIAN WORKERS WHO FIND THEMSELVES IN A TOUGH TOUGH SITUATION.