US navy says marines lied about massacre

[Misfit]

US navy says marines lied about massacre | Adelaide Now

THE Navy has initiated dismissal proceedings against two Marines from a squad that killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005, saying they lied to military investigators after the massacre.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus made the decision, and Sgt Sanick Dela Cruz and Sgt Humberto Mendoza were notified of the move Thursday, said Lt Cmdr Tamara Lawrence, a Navy spokeswoman.


The two Marines could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Marine Corps dropped criminal charges against both men in exchange for their testimony at the trial of former Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich, the squad leader.

Wuterich was the lone Marine convicted in the shooting of unarmed Iraqis in the town of Haditha after a roadside bomb exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others.

Wuterich pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty, halting his trial in January. He was given no jail time as part of a plea agreement. His service ended in February with a general discharge under honourable conditions - one step below an honourable discharge.

 

[Lurk]

THE Navy has initiated dismissal proceedings against two Marines from a squad that killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005, saying they lied to military investigators after the massacre.

The two Marines could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Marine Corps dropped criminal charges against both men in exchange for their testimony at the trial of former Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich, the squad leader.

First off: I am not implying or suggesting that the following hypothetical situation is at play in this case. This is purely a conversational question.

It's no secret that individuals who serve in the U.S. military for a certain period of time can earn their naturalized citizenship solely in reward for that service. The two Sgt in this story have Latin sir-names and I wondered:

If there was or were a number of Latin soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen who earn their citizenship through military service and later admitted they lied under oath or committed some other crime that resulted in their discharge under less than honorable circumstances. Should the U.S. also rescind their naturalization status in such a case? Discuss among yourselves.

 

[spr1975wshs]

My first European ancestor came here in 1622, an apprentice weaver bound to a master in Plymouth Colony. He later served in the colonial militia during the Pequot War in the 1630's.

I am the 12th generation of my family line to have served in some capacity. My nephew is the 13th and I pray to all that is Holy that my great nephew and nieces will not be needed to be the 14th.

My Oath, when I raised my paw and took on the Uniform of my country is the only one I hold as dear as my Wedding Vow.

Anyone who assumes that Oath under false pretenses, or violates that Oath with actions such as those described should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail...

 

[Baywatchv8]

First off: I am not implying or suggesting that the following hypothetical situation is at play in this case. This is purely a conversational question.

It's no secret that individuals who serve in the U.S. military for a certain period of time can earn their naturalized citizenship solely in reward for that service. The two Sgt in this story have Latin sir-names and I wondered:

If there was or were a number of Latin soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen who earn their citizenship through military service and later admitted they lied under oath or committed some other crime that resulted in their discharge under less than honorable circumstances. Should the U.S. also rescind their naturalization status in such a case? Discuss among yourselves.

I say yes! It was in thier contract when they signed up and took the vow. By telling a lie you broke your contract "To follow the orders of those appointed above you"