by Daveda Gruber:
About five years ago Staff Sgt. Joseph Chamblin was convicted and sentenced to 30 days confinement, had his pay docked and was demoted over a video that showed the Marines urinating on enemy corpses.
On Wednesday a military court overturned the conviction of a former Marine sniper involved in urinating on dead Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan in 2011. Evidence came out that a top general meddled in the case to guarantee a harsh punishment. Was this right?
A new ruling uncovered that now-retired Gen. James F. Amos and some of his senior staff evidently tried to “severely and systematically” influence the case to ensure that the Marines who were involved in the controversy would face more severe punishment. Was what they did so wrong?
Amos supposedly told then-Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser that the Marines need to be “crushed” and discharged from the Corps over their behavior.
Amos tried to pressure Waldhauser, who was investigating the case, into issuing the Marines a general courts-martial which is the highest form of criminal trial and threatened to make someone else the authority in the cases after Waldhauser refused to do so.
Waldhauser said, “I responded, ‘No, I’m not going to do that,’ stating that I did not believe any of the cases warranted General Court-Martial.”
Reports say that Amos replaced Waldhauser a few days later with another military official. Fair?
Navy Cmdr. Marcus N. Fulton wrote the recent ruling. He said, overturning the conviction is a “drastic remedy” but was needed to “foster public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.”
“The highest-ranking officer in the Marine Corps told the officer, supervising the case, that the appellant and his co-accused should be ‘crushed,’” the court wrote in its ruling.
“This is an unusually flagrant example of UCI (unlawful command influence). We find that UCI this direct, and occurring at this level, is highly corrosive to public trust in this proceeding.”
In Islam, if an infidel touches the body, they’re not going to Mecca or paradise. This was said to be a psychological advantage.If it helps deter the enemy from killing out troops, should it be frowned upon?