Iraq: Looters justice?

[USAcommitteeX]

http://users.pandora.be/chester/dontloot.wmv

[Krash]

Yeah, nice one - way to win hearts and minds.

[Ash]

Who needs due process? They should have just shot them on the spot. Would have been easier.

Put 19, 20 year old men in charge of "justice" and things like this happen.

Certainly the punishment didn't fit the crime - but it certainly deterred them from looting again.

However, I'm sure that they would have received much better and more humane treatment under the legal system of the previous regime.

[[aNNa]]

that is FUCKING APPALLING!

and we wonder why iraqis and people all over the
world fucking hate us.

all they did was steal wood for christ's sake..
the way the soldier's treated them was DEPLORABLE.
i am so fucking ashamed right now.

so so ashamed..

and why shoot up the taxi driver's ONLY means
by which he can make a living----his TAXI?!
and then why run over it TWICE with a tank?

because they stole wood.


i am fucking disGUSTED.

Originally posted by [aNNa]


and why shoot up the taxi driver's ONLY means
by which he can make a living----his TAXI?!
and then why run over it TWICE with a tank?

Seizing (destroying) the device that facilitated the crime is common.

If a guy hacked a bank site and stole money then had his comuter taken - how sympathetic would you be to his pleas that his only way to earn a living was with the computer?

Shouldn't put your livlihood at risk like that.

And again - I agree - the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[[aNNa]]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Seizing (destroying) the device that facilitated the crime is common.

If a guy hacked a bank site and stole money then had his comuter taken - how sympathetic would you be to his pleas that his only way to earn a living was with the computer?

Shouldn't put your livlihood at risk like that.

And again - I agree - the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

dude. it was WOOD for crying out loud.
not a bank heist.

nothing can be put forth in the soldiers' defense.
the video speaks for itself and needs no further
explanation.

hehe what crime? they stole wood. golly geez
let's run over their car for that one, bob!

Originally posted by [aNNa]
dude. it was WOOD for crying out loud.
not a bank heist.

I agreed with you that the punishment did not fit the crime.

Let me say it again.... I AGREE

I was merely pointng out the the principal was sound even if the degree was skewed.

Originally posted by [aNNa]
nothing can be put forth in the soldiers' defense.
the video speaks for itself and needs no further
explanation.

hehe what crime? they stole wood. golly geez
let's run over their car for that one, bob!

As for the soldiers. These guys are 19 - 20 year old men half way around the world - not lawyers not judges etc.

I agree that this was an overreaction.

However, theft is a crime regardless of the value placed on the object stolen.

I appreciate your big heart.....but what about the people whose wood was stolen?

[MysteryMeat]

I have a stepbrother over there (Baghdad) in the marines right now, with about 2 months left in his tour. I talked to him about the situation over there, and he himself called it deplorable (meaning *our* side of it). He said that for most of the time that he's been over there, all they do other than drills are lay around to work on their tans and play football.

Has anyone heard of the 'Stanford Prison Experiment'? What makes our troop's actions and misdeeds (and yes, I consider what happened in the video a misdeed) more appalling is that in the "real world", many of the people doing these things wouldn't act this way or do these sorts of things. These are (generally) normal, decent human beings placed into extraordinary situations, acting in morally irresponsible and reprehensible ways. As disgusted I am by the video above, I pity those in the armed forces as much as I do the people receiving the brunt of their transgressions. Both sides are pawns, one of which just happens to be much more heavily armed.

[[aNNa]]

Originally posted by xiannaix
I agreed with you that the punishment did not fit the crime.

Let me say it again.... I AGREE

I was merely pointng out the the principal was sound even if the degree was skewed.





As for the soldiers. These guys are 19 - 20 year old men half way around the world - not lawyers not judges etc.

I agree that this was an overreaction.

However, theft is a crime regardless of the value placed on the object stolen.

I appreciate your big heart.....but what about the people whose wood was stolen?

dude i know you agree.
i read that.
*noted twice now thanks*

whether you agree with me or not is not an issue for me.
in fact, it is of miniscule importance where this issue is
concerned.

there's no excuse for it. period.

how do you know it was stolen from ANYONE in particular?
did you gather that from the video or make that up in your
head to try to mitigate the events that transpired?

moreover, who cares? it's WOOD!

the country is in shambles after the war.
there should be plenty for everyone. *sarcasm*

here's the thing, i don't care whose wood it was
(if it was anyone's wood AT ALL TO BEGIN with
which i don't believe until i see proof) i don't care
if it was the president's wood.

what the soldiers did was wrong.

so whatever supposed mitigating circumstances you
insert into this blank: ________________

it won't matter. if you agree that the punishment
didn't fit the crime, why look for mitigating circumstances
such as:

" but...but... what about the owner's of the wood!!!!??"

owner OR no owner, it doesn't change anything whatsoever.

if you agree with me as you said twice now,
then why are you arguing with me on this? *shrug*

Originally posted by [aNNa]
dude i know you agree.
i read that.
*noted twice now thanks*

whether you agree with me or not is not an issue for me.
in fact, it is of miniscule importance where this issue is
concerned.

there's no excuse for it. period.

glad you know I agree

Originally posted by [aNNa]
how do you know it was stolen from ANYONE in particular?

ANYONE - meaning person? Business? In either case if the wood belonged to some one it was theft.

The trailer said it was looted - meaning stolen - true - the clip did not indicate who the victim was.

If the wood belonged to no one then the act was merely collecting trash - but - I'm disinclined to accept that this was merely abandoned scrap wood.....but open to be disillusioned if you find good info.

Originally posted by [aNNa]
did you gather that from the video or make that up in your
head to try to mitigate the events that transpired?

Are we talking about the ownership of the wood or are we talking about the issue that we've acknowledged we agree on here?

Originally posted by [aNNa]
moreover, who cares? it's WOOD!

Again - if it was abandoned scrap - then you're right - who cares.

if it wasn't - then the guy whose wood was stolen cares.

Also, the people of Iraq have a strong interrest in deterring theft.

It is not what was stolen but the fact that theft occurred - unless you're condoning theft when you've deemed the value of the thing stolen to be insignificant....

what other things is it ok to steal?

Originally posted by [aNNa]
the country is in shambles after the war.
there should be plenty for everyone. *sarcasm*

here's the thing, i don't care whose wood it was
(if it was anyone's wood AT ALL TO BEGIN with
which i don't believe until i see proof) i don't care
if it was the president's wood.

what the soldiers did was wrong.

so whatever supposed mitigating circumstances you
insert into this blank: ________________

it won't matter. if you agree that the punishment
didn't fit the crime, why look for mitigating circumstances
such as:

" but...but... what about the owner's of the wood!!!!??"

owner OR no owner, it doesn't change anything whatsoever.

if you agree with me as you said twice now,
then why are you arguing with me on this? *shrug*

[USAcommitteeX]

However, I'm sure that they would have received much better and more humane treatment under the legal system of the previous regime.

If Saddam, Udai, Qusai would have caught them stealing wood, they would have been beaten and shot. But I agree the soldiers used bad judgement and should have crushed his car.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by xiannaix
what other things is it ok to steal?

While I am very much against stealing, not only for a religious but a personally-moral standpoint, I do believe there are cases that are different from others.

There's no excuse or justification for Wynona Ryder stealing $3500 worth of crap that she probably didn't need and certainly could afford.

However, items closer down to the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (food, shelter [wood?], etc) - especially in an extraordinary situation such as being in a country torn apart by war - can easily have justifyable reasons.



Granted, running over the man's car is a lot better than, say, cutting off his hands for stealing. On the other hand, if we're over there on the supposedly high-horsed "we're going to save you from yourselves" plan of action, then I think justice (actual justice like the American system is -supposed- to be, but that's another argument) rather than over-enforced marshall law would be better suited to our goals.

Of course, that's if those are actually our goals.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat


However, items closer down to the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (food, shelter [wood?], etc) - especially in an extraordinary situation such as being in a country torn apart by war - can easily have justifyable reasons.

But as you note...... this goes to the issue of justification - not to guilt

[USAcommitteeX]

But I agree the soldiers used bad judgement and should have crushed his car.

oops They should not have crushed his car.