U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare?
UPDATE: (11/21/06)
Michelle Malkin: “Death penalty affirmed for Muslim soldier who fragged US troops”
AP reports: “The U.S. military charged a staff sergeant from the New York National Guard with murdering his two commanders at a base outside Baghdad, in what is believed to be the first case of an American soldier in Iraq accused of killing his superiors.”
We’re just waiting for liberal subversives, like DailyKos, to speak out in support of this soldier’s terrible crime.
“The military initially concluded that the June 7 deaths of Capt. Phillip T. Esposito, of Suffern, N.Y., and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen, of Milford, Pa., were caused by a mortar round.But this week the military charged Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez of Troy, N.Y., with two counts of premeditated murder, according to a statement issued in Baghdad on Thursday.
Martinez, 37, is a supply specialist with the Headquarters Company of the 42nd Infantry Division, New York Army National Guard.”
The vital question is: Why? What evil, darkness of mind and absence of conscience, would drive a man to commit such an atrocity upon his fellow soldiers?
Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of Amnesty International, Senator Dick Durbin, and all the others who are publicly condemning America’s military by falsely accusing U.S. soliders of crimes against humanity?
Besides demoralizing our troops with obscene rhetoric and anti-American hate speech, has anyone considered that the inflammatory and dishonest politics of liberal warfare — blaming America for all the world’s problems — might lead to lethal consequences, such as subversives reacting explosively?
Beyond comforting and aiding our enemies, terrorist sympathizers and radical activists are knowingly instigating the feeble-minded and the impressionable, and mobilizing their own “army” of the self-loathing by actively demonizing the United States. The results are dangerous and uncontrollable.
How far out, out of the realm of the plausible, would it really be for Martinez’ defense attorney to argue that “the voices” made him do it? Namely, the “already depressed” soldier was traumatically “conflicted” by all the “negative news” about the military, not just from activists but even voiced by congressional leadership, blurring the lines in his mind of who was the “real enemy?”
By today’s legal precedents, this defense argument doesn’t sound too far-fetched, does it? However, it would also be an indictment of all those feeding the anti-American rhetoric machine. They, too, would be culpable.
“He was charged with two counts of premeditated murder, said a statement by the Multinational Task Force in Iraq. He currently is at a military detention facility in Kuwait.His alleged motive was unclear. He has been assigned a military attorney and has the option of hiring a civilian lawyer, authorities said.
“Staff Sgt. Martinez has been and will continue to be afforded the extensive rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” military spokesman Col. Billy J. Buckner said.”
The privilege of American democracy: even killers have rights.
Can one imagine this treatment being afforded under Saddam’s regime? Or in Iran? N. Korea? Cuba? Or any other dictatorship romanticized by liberal activists.
The victims:
“Allen (34) was a science teacher at George F. Baker High School in Tuxedo, N.Y., and was deployed to Iraq just a few weeks ago. He is survived by his wife, Barbara, and four sons, ages 1 to 6.Esposito (30) is survived by his wife and 19-month-old daughter.”
So horrible. So tragic. So mournful.
At this time, we can only offer our sincerest condolences and deepest sympathies for these families and their incredible loss.
Perhaps the political leaders of New York and Pennsylvania will step forward with some charitable action. Two young wives left widows, and five children left fatherless because of this man’s heartless action. If there’s a way to send support, America will respond.
(Does anyone know of any websites on their behalf?)
RELATED: See Michelle Malkin’s Death For Hasan Akbar
SSG Martinez Chagred with Murder
(and how the Media reports it)
The “Wayback” Machine with Amnesty International
Spitting On Our Troops
Gitmo Soldiers Are Nazis?
Chrenkoff’s round-up
GayPatriot puts things in context
Summing it up: DailyPundit has the cartoon.
Show your support: Send the troops a letter
Photo to remember: Freedom On The March
UPDATE: 7/14/07
“Cartoonist” Ted Rall contemptibly depicts American soldiers as poor, white male and stupid killers. Where’s the outrage?
We remain resolute in the argument that liberal propaganda entices those with anti-American sentiment and hostile intentions.
It’s clear that Ted Rall is a carrier of such derangement.
UPDATE: Thanks to Salon’s Daou Report for picking up our story!
UPDATE: (6/20) Bill Clinton Speaks Out On GITMO
Durbin Watch: The Drubbing Continues
Welcome DailyKos readers!
Kos Still Doesn’t Get It
Kos: Defeatist Asshole Who Needs Ass Kicked
June 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
California Conservative- please reconsider your stand. I know you have deep feelings about the war and this incident. But to denigrate fellow Americans who might share a different view isn’t patriotic. You know that, don’t you? To disagree is one thing, that’s ok, but to accuse others of being un-american or un-patriotic…please consider that not everyone thinks the same way you do. It is, after all, a free United States and American country and our fathers and forefathers fought and died to defend United States citizens’ right to disagree. Hang in there, and keep saying what you think. That’s what our country is about.
June 18th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
And, by the way, I am not comfortable with the way things are going in Iraq. We have a big row to hoe. I am considering volunteering to go over to help out but I still feel we may have overstepped our abilities and capabilities. I hope not.
love and go U. S. !!!!
June 18th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
That’s right. Blame this on the liberals. You have no actual evidence that any of this is what was on the soldier’s mind, but that doesn’t prevent you from casting aspersions.
Conservatives so often claim that they behave responsibly. It appears to me that you are only interested in seeing how you can profit from this tragedy.
Don’t you see that violations of the Geneva conventions are immoral, and against the interests of the United States? I say it is our patriotic duty to criticize the policies and the leaders who set those policies that resulted in this immoral behavior. We can do this and still ’support our troops’ because only a twisted mind would think that all of our troops have succumbed to this kind of behavior. To hold back criticism of the policies and leadership in the naive thought that it hurts our troops is pure cowardice.
Your attacks on those making these just criticisms are misguided at best, and are leading us down a path that will be the downfall of this great country.
June 18th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. They are well received.
You present your opinion in an articulate, thoughtful and tempered manner. Something not often delivered from those with opposing views. And that is, precisely, the essence of our sentiments underlying this post.
Our intent is not to “denigrate fellow Americans who might share a different view,” as you conclude. To the contrary, we fully support the right to “freedom of speech” which our nation affords every individual. However, we also recognize that this right is protected not by poets and “peace protesters,” but the soldiers who won our freedom and now guard it.
In this post, we take issue with those critics that are intellectually dishonest. We submit the argument that intentionally false and misleading statements made by those in positions of power (Durbin) and global activism (Amnesty) are truly subversives contributing to a dangerous political game. It is destructive.
It is entirely possible to question America’s actions, as you have, and still be patriotic, as you are. No question. But to purposefully “denigrate” and “assassinate” the character of our military and our leadership based on nothing more than vitriolic rhetoric is very wrong — and dangerous. It puts politics above public good.
That is the message of this post: Casualties of Liberal Warfare? (Question mark intentional) Something to consider. Open to discussion.
Regards,
June 18th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Jim,
Sorry, but you just don’t get it.
“You have no actual evidence that any of this is what was on the soldier’s mind, but that doesn’t prevent you from casting aspersions.”
We are proposing an idea, not offering evidence. Furthermore, it has been liberals casting all the aspersions — and that is the basis of this post.
You missed the point. Maybe re-read it. And check out the rest of the site.
We welcome your future comments.
Regards,
June 18th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Your words ring true. We can’t depend on liberals to fight this war for us. Every conservative of fighting age must sign up and go over there right now.
We could even frag a few libs over there…and none would be the wiser.
June 18th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Porco Rosso- I truly doubt that California Conservative supports your comments. Nuff said.
June 18th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Well, I mean, obviously, the 2nd half of your statement. You would kill fellow americans? Did you read the article? Are you so into your ’cause’ that you would pull the trigger on innocent fellow countymen? Please, engage your brain with common sense.
June 18th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Why is it that conservatives/Republicans emphasize personal responsibility but at every turn blame liberals/Democrats for causing all problems? Even President Reagan took responsibility for some mistakes, but the modern day Republican Party wants to be as perfect as God.
And I disagree with you regarding Durbin’s comments. The American military is sanctioning or at the very least condoing torture. These are practices that are banned and that we have condemned against other regimes. We are not Nazis or Soviets or the Khmer Rouge, but we also commit torture.
June 18th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
liberal / conservation
Bush Hater / Bush Lover
We are Americans, Dog Gone It.
I don’t this blogger will ever have a clue about that fact.
June 18th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Same arguments from the Vietnam war. Gotta have someone to blame. Personally, as a vet, I find it offensive. Free speech is what I served to protect. Not your version of it.
June 18th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
This post is truly, desperately grasping at straws.
It’s not the fault of liberals that the war is going so terribly. If you need to lay blame, lay it at the feet of our
criminally incompetent leadership.
June 18th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Amnesty Int’l referring to “gulags” and Sen. Durbin likening the U.S. military to “nazis” would be far better examples of “grasping at straws.”
June 18th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
no, Durbin’s comments are exaggerations. but it is beyond despute that this administration countenances torture.
blaming liberals for a fragging is pure speculation. That’s what I meant by grasping at straws.
btw, Hagel, a Republican Vietnam vet tells U.S. News & World report, “Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” Hagel tells U.S. News. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”
maybe the realization of this fact caused this GI to lose it. maybe not, but it’s as least as plausible as your theory.
June 18th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
I thought the point of being a conservative was so that one could avoid responsibility.
Ultimately it’s up to God or the Marketplace. Take your pick…
June 18th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
porco rosso,
yes, conservatives of fighting age who support the war
SHOULD go…but unfortunately, prospective soldiers are staying away in droves. The army fell way short of its recruiting goal for May, even after lowering its standards to accept those high school dropouts and those with criminal records.
this is a pretty damning indictment of the whole thing;
if it weren’t for stop loss policies and national guardsmen in iraq there would be hardly anyone over there at all.
I don’t see a stampede of young republican types signing up to fight. Maybe you, or your children, can lead by example.
June 18th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Does this mean we can blame the Oklahoma City bombing on all Rebublicans?
June 18th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
??? on the last post…
btw Kos of daily Kos is a gulf war I vet…he has every right to criticize this war…he is a true patriot and not a subversive. Poppy Bush is probably pretty distressed right now too.
time to face up to the fact that this war is one big fat mistake.
June 18th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
You wrote:
“The privilege of American democracy: even killers have rights.”
Of course you meant to say “… even citizens accused of murder have rights.”
Certainly the AP article you linked to does not suggest that the accused in this tragedy is anything more than that. Do you know something about this case that would render moot a finding of fact?
This is the same disconnect we liberals have with you conservative on Guantanamo. You assume the prisoners are “terrorists.” We don’t.
Even with a trial, innocent people are put in jail and are even put to death. We need to make damn sure we punish the right guys for two obvious reasons. One, it is the worst form of evil to imprison or execute an innocent man, and two, it is important to catch the right guy before he kills, rapes, robs, assaults again.
Due process of law in procedure and substance is the most important American tradition there is.
June 19th, 2005 at 12:07 am
I think what was going through his head was Bush declaring “Mission Accomplished” and Cheney saying the insurgency was in its last throes as the RPGs whizzed by his underarmored Humvee
June 19th, 2005 at 12:58 am
“Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of Amnesty International, Senator Dick Durbin, and all the others who are publicly condemning America’s military by falsely accusing U.S. soliders of crimes against humanity?”
Dude… what the fuck! Lay off the California Gold for a while, it’s makin’ you paranoïd. o_O The guy went psycho, so I don’t think politics had anything to do with that.
June 19th, 2005 at 4:22 am
U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare?
[Source: California Conservative] quoted: Martinez, 37, is a supply specialist with the Headquarters Company of the 42nd Infantry Division, New York Army National Guard.”The vital question is: Why? What evil, darkness of mind and absence of consc…
June 19th, 2005 at 4:27 am
Once upon a time on a sunny September morning, 19 thugs hijacked 4 airplanes and crashed them, killing several thousand people.
Americans were scared and they looked to their President to lead them out of the darkness.
At first, the President invaded Afghanistan, which made sense, because the thugs received their marching orders from there. The American military killed some very bad people and saved some innocent people in Afghanistan and just about everybody was really happy.
Then something very scary happened!
The President and his men told the American people that Saddam Hussein had a hand in that September morning’s wickedness. They said that Saddam Hussein possessed the tools required to destroy us along with the means and the will to do so. They told the American people that if they didn’t stop Saddam Hussein right now we would be attacked again and again!
Millions of Americans stood behind the President while he sent our best young men and women to Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein’s attacks! They were told that doing so would be a ‘cakewalk’ and that God and history were on their side. They were told that they would be greeted with candy and flowers by the grateful Iraqi people.
At first it looked like everything went according to plan. Down with Saddam Hussein! Hooray! Go Team! Go USA!
The President stood beneath a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and told the Americans that the end of major combat operations was at hand.
Hooray! Finally America was safe again.
But then something strange happened!
The Americans couldn’t find any of Saddam’s apocalyptic weapons caches. Saddam must have hidden them too well.
And then something else strange happened!
The Iraqi people decided that they didn’t like having American soldiers everywhere. Some Iraqis were mad at the American soldiers for bringing war to their country. Some Iraqis even started fighting back!
Over time, they were joined by other angry men from neighboring countries who were mad at the American soldiers and they fought back even more!
They conducted something called a guerilla war that everyone knows about but nobody likes to say.
Every day the guerillas killed lots of American soldiers and Iraqis and the American soldiers killed lots of guerillas and Iraqis.
And the President and his men said, “We’re winning the Global War on Terrorism!” and lots of Americans stood behind them.
This went on for TWO YEARS with the guerrillas killing American soldiers and Iraqis and the American soldiers killing guerillas and Iraqis and the President and his men declaring victory every step of the way.
But something wasn’t right.
Some Americans started asking some difficult questions:
“Didn’t the President invade Iraq in order STOP Americans and Iraqis from being killed?”
“Wasn’t an attack against America by Saddam Hussein imminent?”
“Weren’t the Iraqi people going to greet us with open arms, candy, flowers, wine, women and song?”
“Wasn’t Iraqi oil supposed to pay for this war?”
“Wasn’t this supposed to be a cakewalk?”
The President and his men were secretly embarrassed. This Iraq thing was starting to become a real headache! Nothing was going according to plan. They decided that they couldn’t acknowledge this, though, because by doing so, they would lose the confidence of the kind and trusting American people. Instead they pretended that everything was OK.
“The capture of Saddam Hussein puts the final nail in the coffin of violent rule in Iraq!”
“By destroying Fallujah we’ve broken the back of the insurgency!”
“The bad guys are stepping up violence to foil the Iraqi elections.”
“The Iraqi people voted! The guerillas are running away with their tails between their legs!”
“The bombing will be over soon. We’re witnessing the death throes of the insurgency.”
As a result, over the two years of violence and war, the President and his men started to lose credibility with the American people, and fewer and fewer people stood behind them.
More and more Americans started asking difficult questions.
“Why are we in Iraq again?”
“What is this Global War on Terror really about?”
“When can we bring our people home?”
The President and his men and the remaining people standing behind them soon grew desperate. They didn’t like these questions.
Instead of answering these questions, they questioned the motives of the people asking them. “Why do you hate America?” they said.
Which brings us to the summer of 2005.
Most Americans no longer believe what the President and his men and the people who stand behind them have been saying about Iraq and a lot more of them are asking more and more difficult questions.
The President and his men and the people who stand behind them have painted themselves into a corner. Of course they’re not responsible for the things that are going wrong in Iraq!
Saddam and Osama and Zarqawi and al-Qaeda and the Ba’athists and Islam and the Syrians and the Iranians and the French and the UN and the media and most of all the people asking the difficult questions are the ones who are responsible!
“You’re either with us or against us,” the President once said.
So watch what you say.
June 19th, 2005 at 5:27 am
Brunch: 6/19/2005
Try one of these specials with your weekend brunch: Frank J. has an apology from Dick Durbin. Dan Riehl from Riehl World News stays on the forefront of Natalee’s disappearance. The Political Teen follows Dan Riehl’s appearance on Fox News
June 19th, 2005 at 7:37 am
You are disgusting filth and beneath contempt. Your dark intimation that the soldier was responding to messages he got from peace and justice advocates is ridiculous on its face and it is obvoius that your are attempting to smear these institutions and all people of conscience. ou are practicing a very dangerous game that could bea the same fruits as similar right-wing smears in germany, Rwanda and anywhere that the right demonized its ideological opponents.
-
June 19th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Jeff Johns — you’re not thinking clearly. You allege, “to denigrate fellow Americans who might share a different view isn’t patriotic.” and then felt compelled to add the little condescension, “You know that, don’t you?”
So in the space of two sentences you’ve scolded CC for denigrating ‘fellow Americans with differing views’ and then denigrated CC. Then you urge “hanging in there and saying what you think.” No sense at all.
In order to think clearly, one must make judgments against a set of Values. Some things actually are wrong. I am jaw-droppingly amazed that you show no objection at all to the torture the enemy commits — which actually is torture. What is described at Gitmo is not torture.
Worrying about an enemy combatant being too chilly and made to listen to rap ‘music’ -vs- blowing up school children with IEDs. No sense at all.
As to the whole Geneva Conventions argument, I suggest y’all read it. [see Google] Perhaps you can then muster up some small objections to the fact that the enemy is spitting on the basic intent of the Conventions. [pretending to be civilians / bombing/shooting civilians / using places of worship as ammo dumps and sniper nests / kidnapping civilians, and so on]
Liberal Avenger; pretty story. too bad you added so much sarcasm there was no room for fact-checking.
June 19th, 2005 at 8:18 am
U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare?
Sometimes I just don’t know what to say, it’s sort of like wondering how people like this process their thoughts!
June 19th, 2005 at 8:25 am
History teaches us (if you choose to review rather than revise it) that “fragging” superior officers and senior noncoms is not a rare event. It has been going on in every army the US has ever formed, drafted, or sought volunteers for. Take Vietnam for example. There were literally thousands of incidences of confirmed and suspected fragging of senior and junior leadership. Mostly by disgruntled, unmotivated and self preserving troopers unwilling to face a threat that could very likely cause death or maiming on their person. We now see the natural conclusion to this war. It is much easier to blast a leader making what you feel are dangerous and what you may feel as “wrong to do” decisions or might threaten the lives of your buddies than it is to go above this leader to report his bad decisions, or worse yet, to desert your brothers.
I am truly not agreeing with the act nor it’s resulting positive or likely negative effects. Our troops that act out in this way will no doubt increase the longer we are there. Although an act of murder it is all some desperate troops can see as a solution to a life threatening problem of their own.
Do not think for a minute that any information posted to the web or reported in the mainchanneled media or printed in any fishwrap or magazine…these soldiers make a personal decision based on fear of death for themseleves or the troops you work, live, eat and ultimately fight with. To blame any group or reported news or propaganda from either side is to both ignore history and the truth.
June 19th, 2005 at 9:54 am
We know with 100% uncertainty that it was conservatives that placed Martinez in Iraq and put a gun in his hand.
Why blame liberals based on a “just suppose” when we know who the real culprits are?
June 19th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Dear Readers,
It delightful to see that we’ve got a lot of people talking. That was our intention, of course. Discussion. Lively debate. Unfortunately, not everyone is following the argument — not logically, at least.
A few more things to chew on…
—
Dear Liberal Avenger,
Thank you for flying in from New England and saving us with your super-hero narrative. We’re sure some of our fiction readers enjoy your entertaining story. But, most importantly, thanks for hitting the nail squarely on the head and making our case with your final sentence: “So watch what you say.”
That is exactly the point of our post. Namely, there are serious consequences to hate-speech and the perpetuation of lies, especially when they are directed at America’s major institutions. Criticism is one thing, dishonest rhetoric is another. Words may, in fact, be lethal, or else (as a quick example) it wouldn’t be against the law to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. People react. Words can also incite violence.
—
Dear jri,
Thanks for sharing your feelings. Unfortunately, we may be talking about different organizations.
You write:
“Your dark intimation that the soldier was responding to messages he got from peace and justice advocates is ridiculous on its face and it is obvoius that your are attempting to smear these institutions and all people of conscience.”
We are not talking about “peace and justice advocates,” we’re talking about the people referenced within this post. (Did you see the photo on top?) Encouraging the murder of military officers and maligning our entire military on the basis of propoganda does not come from “people of conscience.” It comes from radicals and subversives who seek to undermine America.
—
Dear Jimmy26yrVet,
Thanks for the reply, and thank you for your service.
To your comment:
“[Fragging] has been going on in every army the US has ever formed, drafted, or sought volunteers for. Take Vietnam for example.”
Good example. And we would argue, with equal conviction, that the liberal activism, the obscene rhetoric (calling U.S. soldiers “baby killers”) and the hostility of elected officials (think John Kerry) influenced not only the soldiers, but also the perception of America and how the war was waged. Politics prevailed. The consequences were, indeed, deadly.
“To blame any group or reported news or propaganda from either side is to both ignore history and the truth.”
History reveals the truth of how evil propoganda can most certainly influence a nation and a people. It happened it 1945, and it’s going on in the Middle East today. To ignore that is dangerous and reckless.
June 19th, 2005 at 10:17 am
Dear Liberal Avenger,
It’s more than “just suppose” — and wouldn’t you say that a thinking person should question in order to discover? Hence, we’re merely floating a theory (albeit compelling) and everyone can draw their own conclusions.
By the way, visited your website. It’s very nice. Stylish top bar design. Honest. However, noticed your moniker: “A Massachusetts born and bred, Berkeley-educated liberal coming to you from beautiful blue New England.”
That’s explains a lot. Really. Thought you might want to reminisce about the good times in the Peoples Republic of Berkeley. They surely understand you.
June 19th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Right on, California Conservative! Everybody knows that if you’re from Massachusetts and went to Berkeley, any argument you might make is thereby rendered invalid.
June 19th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Your theory that he was brainwashed into a murderous hatred of his own country by the speech of Sen. Durbin is interesting, but surely we can do better than that. More likely, he was recruited by homosexuals and the whole case was the sad result of a love triangle. Or maybe it was Satanists? Or Greenpeace? Or PETA?
I don’t have any evidence - these are just suggestions.
June 19th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Some Blog posts dont even need comments; they stand alone in obscene glory, like this one. California Conservative adds another drop to the tidal wave coming against the right in America. Its gonna be ugly and surprising for them.
June 19th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
This seems like the claiming of the first shots of the civil war that conservatives would like to start against liberals. In the same way Hitler claimed that invading Poland was a defensive move, I can imagine some years in the future, stupid psychopaths like Porco Rosso crying “Remember Allen and Esposito!!” before lobbing a grenade into the house of an American liberal family. Really, if the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech is truly important to you, you might consider your wording in posts like these.
June 19th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Hey, nice piece, but don’t i at least get a hat tip??
June 19th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Good luck, you are SO ignorant.
June 19th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
As an 82 airborne and a combat medic in the first gulf war, I can assure you that Dick Durbin was not high on this soldiers list of priorities. He simply could not handle the pressure of combat. To be republican now is to be ignorant or mean and this guy appears to fit both catagories. Does anyone else find it strange that we now hate France but love communist China, or that we can’t stand the UN but we love Saudi Arabia? Corperations are leading our country and misleading all of us.
June 19th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
OK, so, you’re just wondering, purely hypothetically, if what you refer to as liberal warfare is responsible for one soldier allegedly killing officers.
I’ll just answer it for you: no.
So, how about we move onwards to a discussion about what we specifically should do to resolve the Iraq situation.
Because it doesn’t seem to me like things are working over there. And I don’t think finding ways to obliquely point fingers at liberals is really gonna fix that.
June 20th, 2005 at 4:34 am
I love this stupid sort of speculation to make political points. This is fun…let’s try some others…
Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the self-styled “patriots” who “guard” the American-Mexican border? That it was unhappiness over perceived racism that led him to such horrible actions?
Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Jason Giambi, as he took his anger over his sense of the loss of baseball’s innocence out on his superiors?
No wait, how about ths one…
Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of the Cookie Monster, Elmo, and Blue, as he registered his unhappiness over the conservative decisions to cut PBS funding?
Really, I could go on in this vein, but it’s pretty stupid. As was the original post.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:35 am
You’re an idiot. I wouldn’t want to lower to level of political discourse here, but to blame people who disagree with you for someone else committing murder? You epitomize my distaste for the right-wing. It’s so impossible for you to hear anything outside of your own echo chamber that you probably don’t see a distinction between an opposing viewpoint and murder. Grow up.
June 20th, 2005 at 6:01 am
How come “It’s all the liberals fault! It’s all the liberals fault!” is the most clever argument the right wing can come up with?
June 20th, 2005 at 8:20 am
[…] o Much Grunting » Jerry Brown Gets Married, Finally » Catch-of-the-Day » U.S. Soldier Kills Hi […]
June 20th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Not so fun being a winger anymore I’m afraid. Not if there is a lot more where these comments came from.. and their just might be….
June 20th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Your “I’m just thinking” analysis of why this sergent might have killed his commanding officers is based upon what? Your experience as a Police detective? Or is it based upon your knowlege that all the troops out in Iraq have such easy access to news and information? Perhaps your theory is based upon your personal knowlege of the interpersonal conflict between the Sergent and his officers?
Perhaps before you shoot off your mouth in such a way as to attempt to blame third persons in a tragedy, you might base your reasoning on something more than your prejudice.
I might note that the comments that Senator Durbin made were limited to saying that the description of the prisoners’ conditions as described by the FBI (who weren’t pleased either) were similar to the descriptions that you might have read of prisoner treatment by the stalinists, or the Nazi, and not the US. He never said that American Soldiers are war criminals, despite the fact that we have in fact convicted american soldiers of acts against Iraqis that can only be called war Crimes.
SO tell me. When an American Soldier is convicted of criminal violation of the uniform code of military justice, during war, against a prisoner, when does he become a war criminal? And if I describe one sergent as a war criminal does that mean i am not “supporting our troops”
June 20th, 2005 at 10:04 am
This post will get yanked, but so what?
Your accusations that non-conservative politicians are anti-American is wrong. I accuse you of anti-Americanism because you claim that folks that don’t support the war and the liars that got us into it are anti-American.
Face it. BushCo lied us into this war. People are starting to realize that. Things will change. Jackboots like yourself are becoming rather passé.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Great work, people. Keep ‘em coming…
Ironically, the caption photo above speaks for itself. Therein lies the entire premise and point of this post: Words are dangerous. May be lethal. Why else would there be laws against defamation of character? Or inciting violence?
This post is merely suggesting that liberals should consider the consequences of their reckless rhetoric. This post poses a question. The answer is to each his own. Incidentally, is there any excuse to the message being promoted on the photo? No one has commented on that.
You all keep missing it, intentionally or ignorantly.
Thanks for your continued feedback!
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 am
[…] o Much Grunting » Jerry Brown Gets Married, Finally » Catch-of-the-Day » U.S. Soldier Kills Hi […]
June 20th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Where did that photo come from? And are you really trying to suggest that it speaks for all liberals, as though we’re all one group that singlemindedly supports the kind of wacky banner your illustration depicts? Do you want me posting banners by Fred Phelps saying that America deserved the 9/11 attacks and saying that it speaks for you as a conservative?
Anyone want to say they agree with the banner? Anyone here? There’s a lot of self-described liberals posting here and my guess is you can’t find 3 who agree with and support the murder that took place.
Not only is this banner not representative of the left as a whole, not only is its source not attributed, but you haven’t even allowed the us to gather the banner’s context. Are they being ironic? Is this a satire? Are these people simply being provokative? Are they escaped mental patients? If it’s Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC unveiling their new slogan, you may have a case that this illustrates more than your own cherrypicking of information to colour all liberals with a brush that should be reserved for certain factions of the extreme radical left.
Sloppy. Your arguments are not trustworthy.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:28 am
The answers to your questions are in the post.
The photo here and here.
Furthermore, we never proposed that all liberals (Democrats) are liable. We stated specifically: “terrorist sympathizers and radical activists“
Thanks for reading!
June 20th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
You also stated specifically “U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare?” You also stated specifically “This post is merely suggesting that liberals should consider the consequences of their reckless rhetoric.” Your column is about liberals - don’t try to disown your own words now by saying it was only meant to comment on the lunatic fringe.
June 20th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
“Could it be possible that among the voices in Staff Sgt. Martinez’ head were those of Amnesty International, Senator Dick Durbin, and all the others who are publicly condemning America’s military by falsely accusing U.S. soliders of crimes against humanity?”
Could it be that the voices in YOUR head are as crazy as Son of Sam?
Sure the hell sounds that way to me.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Clinton Calls for Closing Gitmo (Deception to Avoid Moral Isolation)
“Concerning the Way in Which Princes Should Keep Faith,” by Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, AD 1513, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html#CHAPTER%20XVIII[*].
“Clinton adds voice to criticism of Guantánamo,” by Lionel Bar…
June 20th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Words are dangerous. May be lethal. Why else would there be laws against defamation of character? Or inciting violence?
How about - because both defamation of character and inciting to violence must have a specific and provable link from the cause to the effect, in order to be prosecuted?
As opposed to casting vague aspersions on liberals, because you’d like to blame them for something.
You know, personal responsibility for individual choices is fine - unless you can find a way to blame a liberal.
Sigh.
Incidentally, is there any excuse to the message being promoted on the photo? No one has commented on that.
No, no one has commented on one photo that you’ve found. Of course it’s not a reasonable sentiment, nor one that I or nearly anyone who calls themselves a liberal would agree with.
One could similarly place the blame for some yahoo toting a sign that says “God Hates Fags”, on all conservatives for every single gay man that is killed.
That would be wrong, correct?
Well, if it’s wrong for someone to do to you, then it’s wrong to do to someone else.
Take responsibility for your own hate speech, and don’t demonize your countrymen because they disagree with you.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Seems to me that you’re part of an attempt to shift blame for impending failure in Iraq. Just like Rambo saying that they “wouldn’t let us win” in Vietnam; somehow despite the fact that Republicans are very much in control of the American political establishment the disempowered party is the root of our troubles… c’mon, that’s shaky logic.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
No, it couldn’t be that because Dick Durbin is upset we’re torturing people in Guantanamo, that a soldier killed his brother soldiers. To believe that would be less logical than to believe that most attacks against Americans are because President Bush said, “Bring it on.” This would make more sense, because the President did in fact ask people to attack us. No Democrat or liberal or civil libertarian that I’m aware of has asked either Americans or foreigners to kill Americans, which puts them all one up on the President.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
You are exactly right Ca. conservative. This killing is the fault of the liberals, just like all those courthouse killings that cleary are related “activists judges.” It is good to see you aligning with rapists and killers against the liberal enemy that is destroying this country. And who the hell needs any evidence, you have speculation- that is all we needed to start war with Iraq. It stand to reason that speculation is all you need for your post.
Durbin never said are soldiers were Nazis. His complaint was that the report looks more like something from a nation we would all consider, “evil” not the world’s beacon of freedom. As many have said, his point was not that we are too much like those regimes, but that we aren’t different enough. Screw him though! How dare those liberals want our country to be great and held to such a high standard.
So thank you for your post. It isn’t ironic at all that Conservatives constantly complain about people not taking responsibility for their own actions (you know- blaming the tobacco company or their childhood), but search for others to take the blame when this soldier does something wrong. It isn’t ironic at all that with the party of “responsibility” the buck stops nowhere, or with the liberals.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Also, in your “conservatism”, you misspelled coercion.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Also, you’re an ignorant asshole. You know that, don’t you?
June 20th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Soldiers in every war have murdered superior officers. To speculate, based on a single paragraph of dry fact, that this murder was “caused” by Amnesty International is preposterous. You could just as well say it was caused by a hate-filled blog like this one because the Sgt. thought his officers were too soft on human-rights supporters. Both are speculative nonsense.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
“Fragging†is an action described in the L.A. Times article about Ssgt. Martinez’s arrestas being taken by “discontented†soldiers against superior officers. This is not, typically, what fragging was in Vietnam, where the horrible act was given a name but certainly not invented.
“Terrified†would be a better term to describe a fragger’s state of mind. What usually brought on a fragging was the arrival of a young officer fresh out of officers’ training school, his head full of book-learning and an inflated notion of his own skills, to lead a platoon of soldiers who had been in-country for some time and who had learned a great deal about how to wage the war and how to stay alive while doing it. The young officer typically was making decisions and demanding actions that looked good on paper but ran counter to good sense and that stood a good chance of getting people killed unnecessarily. In extreme cases, where appeals to higher authority produced no results, the concept, “Better one of him that all the rest of us,†took hold and desperate men, afraid for their lives at the hands of an arrogant young nincompoop, took action.
I have no idea if this is what drove Ssgt. Martinez, or if he’s even guilty of a crime; he’s still in the “alleged” state. But I remember people talking about fragging in the Vietnam era and it wasn’t about politics or who stole whose girlfriend. It was about staying alive. It was wrong then and wrong today, but it was often not what anyone would call a “senseless” killing.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Today, speaking out on GITMO, Bill Clinton said:
“It’s time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused.”
“If we get a reputation for abusing people, it puts our own soldiers much more at risk,” Clinton said.
Hmmm. “Stories” (whether true or false) contributing to sullied “reputation” resulting in increased “risk” for soldiers.
Wonder what he was talking about? Dishonest rhetoric is risky business.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
In a few months (I hope) the video will come out of US soldiers raping and killing boys in Iraq. People who’s opinion I trust have seen it.
I’m confident (at least hopeful) your opinion will change after its release.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Your most recent posting states: “The privilege of American democracy: even killers have rights.” It’s good to hear conservatives talk this way.
Perhaps you can enlighten our President to this fact and have him afford such rights to the 500 men held in perpetuity without charges and without rights in Guantanamo Bay. God knows he doesn’t listen to me.
June 20th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Hang in there, and keep saying what you think. That’s what our country is about. I know many posts here claim differently. I agree with you, I do,and feel free to disagree with me.
June 20th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Mark and the other libs kill me (and by that I mean make me laugh)
> 500 men held in perpetuity without
> charges and without rights
Why do they have rights?
The granting of rights means the receiver has obligations. I know this is a difficult concept for the Left, which wants to grant rights to goldfish, but it’s true.
If you say they have rights under the Geneva Convention (with the obligation transferred to the entity that is fighting the war), then they have to be POWs, and they can be held until the entity we are at war with (OBL?) negotiates their surrender (or prisoner exchange, etc.).
But they aren’t POWs, they were captured out of uniform. During WWII we would just shoot them, but instead we put them in prison. Sounds like we are being too nice these days if you ask me.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Director Mitch. Get off your consulting ass and get to Iraq then. If you are a true , Arab killing patriot then get to work. I think it would be excellent for the safety of our soldiers if were killed 500 people who haven’t been charged with a crime. You are really looking out for them. Since recruiting is low, I’m sure you will hurry up and join so you can experience the results of our treatment of prisoners firsthand.
Could it be that we are creating more terrorists then we are killing? Could this be what they’ve already learned in Northern Ireland and Israel? Of course not! That is just unAmerican drivel. Go get ‘em Mitch.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Senator Durbin compared the documented torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to techniques used in Nazi camps, Soviet gulags and Khmer Rouge prisons. In doing so, Senator Durbin articulated an uncomfortable and startling truth about a horribly misguided and immoral U.S. policy. I agree with his statements.
He most certainly did not slander the U.S. military.
I also strongly support Senator Durbin’s contention that the United States should place detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq under Geneva Conventions protection. Americans who either explicitly support the use of torture, or adhere to a “see no evil, hear no evil” attitude about it, place our soldiers and our citizens at risk.
I appreciate Senator Durbin’s moral leadership and fearless patriotism in addressing this matter, and feel proud to have him representing my state in the Senate.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:57 am
Why do they have rights?
“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”…
So you don’t like the Constitution?
The granting of rights means the receiver has obligations. I know this is a difficult concept for the Left, which wants to grant rights to goldfish,
as opposed to a fetus?
But they aren’t POWs, they were captured out of uniform.
That’s true. One of them, already beaten to death, and since found innocent, was a taxi driver.
Either the US of A stands for liberty, freedom and the decent treatment of the powerless, or it stands for killing and torturing anyone we want to, without caring if they’re guilty or innocent. You make your decision. I’ve made mine.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:00 am
The granting of rights means the receiver has obligations.
That’s right. We do have obligations. We have, as invaders, the obligation to treat the citizens of the country that we have invaded with decency.
It sounds like you would prefer to think that we have no obligations, to the people that we’ve conquered. That we should just be able to go over, kick the shite out of everbody, do whatever we want ’cause we have the guns?
Does that sound decent to you?
June 21st, 2005 at 10:07 am
Thanks for checking in again, Jim. Really don’t want to interrupt the engaging conversation you’re having with yourself. But, as a courtesy, please save some room for other commentary. Thanks, buddy.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:38 am
Man, it’s a good thing you are not in high school cause you’d get an “F” in history, an “F” in social studies, and an “F” in Government. And if they still taught logic, you’d get an “F” in that, too.
The traitors are those who let the terrorists win without a fight. Those of you who are so willing and egar to throw our cherished way of life and our great American traditions (open govt., free press, free speech) down the toilet are doing just that.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:01 am
Whew, alot of comments here, and wonder if I should bother, but what the hey…
It might be a good idea for us to start reexamining history, specifically that of ancient Athens – the first democracy in recorded history, and the font of Western civilization. It too was, at its height, a “shining city on the hillâ€Â; a center of wealth, knowledge, and enlightened thinking. Then a few corrupt and unscrupulous politicians, dissatisfied with having to share power with the masses, started beating the drum for war. Oh, they had an argument for everyone – to the war lovers, they promised glorious military victories; to the greedy, they promised the plunder of conquered foes; to the fearful, they cited the threat of jealous rivals (and even hired thugs to set a few buildings ablaze and blamed it on “foreign spiesâ€Â); and to the idealistic, they promised to topple the tyrannies of their backwards neighbors and spread the enlightened ideals of Athens to the rest of the world. Soon, the people were convinced, and swept up in this call for empire.
There was a lone dissenting voice – a fellow by the name of Socrates – who warned that not only was this plan immoral, it would also squander the wealth of Athens, and make a lot of unnecessary enemies. They ignored him, of course, and set forth on their campaign of conquest. As Socrates predicted, things went south fairly quickly. Not only did their invasions fail (the fools actually tried to take on Sparta, at one point), but they also signed away many of their democratic freedoms in the name of “homeland securityâ€Â. Eventually, their military was destroyed, and they found themselves under siege by a coalition of newly-created enemies. Desperate and starving, the people sought someone to blame. Did they blame themselves? Of course not. Did they blame the politicians that had led them down this path? By that that time, these men had become far too powerful and had taken control of the means of public discourse, so that wasn’t about to happen. No, they blamed the one person who had tried to warn them of their folly, claiming, against all logic, that this tiny and ignored minority had somehow undermined the people’s will to fight. Eventually, Socrates was tried, convicted, and executed. The official charge was “corruption of the youth†(“against family values†might be another way of putting it).
Any of this sound familiar? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes. It is also interesting to note that none of the politicians that led Athens to ruin are commonly known today, but Socrates fame will likely be eternal.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:16 am
Thank you very much for fully exposing the activities of Amnesty International. I just sent them another check.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:48 am
Well, it apparently wasn’t the voices of Amnesty International, Dick Durbin or Osama bin Ladin himself that made Martinez do it.
It was plain ol’ criminal guilt - he was under investigation for “irregularities” associated with his job as supply sergeant. Esposito, as his Commanding Officer, would have been the officer who initiated the investigation.
So the guy was a crook who was pilfering Army supplies, and he killed his CO in the hope of wiggling out of it.
No evil Liberals. No evil peaceniks. No crazy voices saying, “kill the pigs!”
Just plain ol’ criminality.
You should get a cold drink next time your thinking gets that feverish.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Why? What evil, darkness of mind and absence of conscience, would drive a man to commit such an atrocity upon his fellow soldiers?
Here’s an idea - join the Army and go find out.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:50 pm
[…] om the podium. RELATED: Durbin Decries Saddam’s ‘Junk-Food Jailers’ U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare? Not Worth A Damn: The Dick Durbin â […]
June 21st, 2005 at 7:11 pm
So, let me see if I’m getting what I’ve read: Contrary to all stated goals under the heading of “social justice,” some are now claiming complete ignorance of the phenomenon of “normalization?”
Making it “normal” — thus acceptable — through constant exposure for someone to have, say, different ‘cultural values,’ speak a different version of English or have a different ‘family structure’ is now a completely foreign concept? And would relate not at all to the effects of the constant harping of Kennedy, Durbin, Pelosi, AI, et al about “torture” which is not torture and “American imperialism” though we keep giving the countries back and paying to rebuild them and “it’s our fault they hate us,” which is codependent self-sabotage, upon the weak-willed and, shall we say, easily influenced among us?
So, if one is not to blame any news or propaganda for normalizing things previously thought to be out of bounds, what is it that happened with the radio programming in 1935-40 Europe?
Words are tools: they are the handles by which we manipulate ideas. A hammer can be used to build a beautiful home — or to beat a math teacher’s head in. A pencil can be used to write a sonnet– or to poke your eye out. Words require similar responsible usage.
June 21st, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Another thought:
Has anyone really thought through this “terrorists are created by US actions” idea? Many times others have been unfair, hostile or outright intentionally harmful to the US in their foreign policy and members of this civilization have not chosen to fly their planes into their buildings. Might there be something beyond what the US does that motivates these souls?
In fact, might it not be terribly disrespectful to the point of being insulting to intimate that they live only in reaction to US actions? Is it not self-centered in the extreme to assume that ‘our brown brothers’ might not have reasons and motivations borne entirely of their culture and world view and not simply all about US?
And the US Constitution is not a universal document — other countries have their own. If one is not a citizen of the US, one has no rights under the US Constitution. If one is not a citizen of Afghanistan, one has no rights under the Afghani Constitution.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:59 pm
[…] blank”>
June 22, 2005
Liberals OK Soldier Killing Superior
[The] California Conservative writes in to tell us about an instance where a U.S. Soldier killed his […]
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:24 am
Symbols and Allegiances : Beware the “Anti American”
What does “anti-American” mean? The California Bigot (uh, sorry, Conservative) has one of the most blatant mis-uses of this phrase that I have seen for a while…if not ever…
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
We submit the argument that intentionally false and misleading statements made by those in positions of power (Durbin)
Ah Neocon newspeak yet again. Now you tell us, regardless of whether you find the language “over the line”, just what part of Durbin’s statement was false. What did he say that wasn’t true?
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for checking in again, Jim. Really don’t want to interrupt the engaging conversation you’re having with yourself.
You’re welcome. Feel free to join in and rebut any of my comments, at any time.
No? What happened to your certainty?
GITMO got your tongue?
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Zack — go read the Geneva Conventions and get back to me…
Jim — I did. [see above] …or doesn’t it count unless CC says it? Why oh why are you so prejudiced and intolerant of me?!?!?
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Claire:
OK, so now tell me what he that was not true.
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Heloooo! Claire?
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:47 pm
[…] omforting the enemy with their recent rhetoric? The consequences of words? Sounds very familiar. The blogosphere is abuzz: The Crybaby Party Targets Karl Rove Karl Rove gets […]
August 16th, 2005 at 11:34 am
[…] /protesters_killofficers.jpg”> Two months ago, we pondered the “casualities of liberal warfare.” Today, it appears the answer can be summed up as: The loss of […]
September 17th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
[…] RELATED: Durbin Decries Saddam’s “Junk-Food Jailers” U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare? Not Worth A Damn: The Dick Durbin “Apology” Senator Dick Durbin in Shrek How Do Jews Feel About Dick Durbin’s Outrageous Remarks? Lost Kos: The Lunacy of The Left […]
September 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
[…] RELATED: USMC Vet is hoppin’ mad. Dissects and rejects. How Do Jews Feel About Dick Durbin’s Outrageous Remarks? Senator Dick Durbin in Shrek U.S. Soldier Kills His Superiors: Casualties of Liberal Warfare? These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
August 31st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Phentermine without a prescription….
No prescription phentermine. Discount phentermine. Buy phentermine cod. Phentermine diet pills. Phentermine. Phentermine information….