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.
