If he got punched in the mouth he probably deserved it !
I served in the military, and I'll tell you what I would have done if something like this had happend. After charges were filed against any fellow serviceman, I would not take the chance of having an enemy combatant accuse me of a crime. I would never have an oppurtunity to 'arrest' someone, they would always resist to the point, that I would have had to use deadly force to protect me and my comrades.
What else are we teaching these guys, but that they will not be supported for even the most minor of indiscretion.
What else are we teaching these guys, but that they will not be supported for even the most minor of indiscretion.
So you don't mind using derogatory terms to describe people, but you've got a problem with not telling the truth to someone who is obviously out to hang you by your ass for doing your job?
I don't think it should be illegal to lie to the federal government in an investigation. They answer to us, not the other way around. If they don't have enough evidence to win in court, why should they get to imprision you because you didn't help them?
With that said, I wouldn't lie to them. It would be the absolute truth when I told them to go f__k themselves!
Another reason to vote them out and send them home. Then they will have to work for a living.
It's not derogatory; it's descriptive; they wear towels on their heads. But having said that, the answer is no, I don't mind using derogatory terms at all when describing towelhead Muslim religious nut a-holes (*&%^(*&%ers. Oh wait, I'm wrong; I called them a-holes before, so that was derogatory.
Yes, I do (at least to a moderate extent). You don't lie. You can't; it's illegal in both civilian and military settings to lie to law enforcement; we live in a society of rules; telling the truth is necessary to the administration of justice. They should have said "hell yeah, I punched the sonvabich".
But let me ask you something (and tell me if I'm wrong) .... - back when Clinton lied under oath about having an affair with Paula Jones, and all the D's were screaming at the top of their lungs "Who cares - look what he's lying about - about SEX, which is nobody's business anyway, so it doesn't matter!", were you one of the ones who called BS on that and said "irrelevant what the lie was about; lying under oath is lying under oath, and he should be prosecuted for perjury and impeached!"? Because if you were, I was right there with you, calling for Clinton's impeachment and criminal perjury trial, for lying under oath. So I'm being consistent here - are you?
Really? Well ok, then you WERE a big Clinton defender, weren't you? Interesting theory; may have merit; but it would sure make law enforcement job a LOT tougher.
I agree with that generally, but...
You don't have to help them, but you DO have to refrain from lying. You CAN (and should) remain silent, per the 5th amendment! Keep your mouth shut, but don't LIE - that's what the gov't is alleging these guys did - LIE / mislead in OFFICIAL statements!
Good! Perfect!
Me too! All for it - telling them to $@#$ themselves ain't lying! YMMV.
Having said all that, I'm not 100% un-mind-changeable here.... if it was an obvious witch-hunt screw job on these guys from the get-go, just for a couple of punches, then I can kinda sorta see the merit in excusing white lies or arguable half-truths to escape the witch hunt, even in an official statement..... I'd have to know all the facts, and know how clear and unequivocal (and of what magnitude) the (alleged) lies were, to form a judgment. That's prosecutorial discretion there. But if the lies of of major import and unequivocal, the prosecutor has little choice but to go ahead and try them to uphold the rule of law when it comes to obstruction, etc.
It's not derogatory; it's descriptive; they wear towels on their heads. But having said that, the answer is no, I don't mind using derogatory terms at all when describing towelhead Muslim religious nut a-holes (*&%^(*&%ers. Oh wait, I'm wrong; I called them a-holes before, so that was derogatory.
Yes, I do (at least to a moderate extent). You don't lie. You can't; it's illegal in both civilian and military settings to lie to law enforcement; we live in a society of rules; telling the truth is necessary to the administration of justice. They should have said "hell yeah, I punched the sonvabich".
But let me ask you something (and tell me if I'm wrong) .... - back when Clinton lied under oath about having an affair with Paula Jones, and all the D's were screaming at the top of their lungs "Who cares - look what he's lying about - about SEX, which is nobody's business anyway, so it doesn't matter!", were you one of the ones who called BS on that and said "irrelevant what the lie was about; lying under oath is lying under oath, and he should be prosecuted for perjury and impeached!"? Because if you were, I was right there with you, calling for Clinton's impeachment and criminal perjury trial, for lying under oath. So I'm being consistent here - are you?
Really? Well ok, then you WERE a big Clinton defender, weren't you? Interesting theory; may have merit; but it would sure make law enforcement job a LOT tougher.
I agree with that generally, but...
You don't have to help them, but you DO have to refrain from lying. You CAN (and should) remain silent, per the 5th amendment! Keep your mouth shut, but don't LIE - that's what the gov't is alleging these guys did - LIE / mislead in OFFICIAL statements!
Good! Perfect!
YMMV.
Having said all that, I'm not 100% un-mind-changeable here.... if it was an obvious witch-hunt screw job on these guys from the get-go, just for a couple of punches, then I can kinda sorta see the merit in excusing white lies or arguable half-truths to escape the witch hunt, even in an official statement..... I'd have to know all the facts, and know how clear and unequivocal (and of what magnitude) the (alleged) lies were, to form a judgment. That's prosecutorial discretion there. But if the lies of of major import and unequivocal, the prosecutor has little choice but to go ahead and try them to uphold the rule of law when it comes to obstruction, etc.
FWIW, I hated Clinton, but I LMAO at Ken Starr and everyone who was out to hang him for getting a little nookie in the Oval Office. I thought it was sad and partisan and stupid. If you have nothing better to do than chase other people's sex lives, you lead a sad, pathetic little life.
I didn't blame Bill for having his way with Monica and I didn't blame her for boffing the Prez. he shouldn't have had to lie in the first place because he shouldn't have been under investigation to start with. Hell, they should have investigated that ogre Hillary for not keeping Bill satisfied. I certainly don't want a sexually frustrated Alpha male making decisions for the country!
Those SEALS should have never been investigated either. If I was their CO and one of the most heinous terrorists on the battlefield had complained about a fat lip, I would have punched him again and called him a little pansy for whining about it. If you take up arms against the United States of America, the last thing in the world you should be complaining about is a punch to the face.
And if you take up arms for the United States of America, the last thing in the world you should be worrying about is whether your command structure will expect you to deliver great violence against your enemies, then persecute you after you've done it.
And if you take up arms for the United States of America, the last thing in the world you should be worrying about is whether your command structure will expect you to deliver great violence against your enemies, then persecute you after you've done it.
There it is. Our boys word should ALWAYS carry 100 times the weight of anyone else's word when they are deployed and "working". If one of them does something so iconcienable that it deserves prosecution, then there will be other soldiers, marines, or sailors ready to tell the truth about what happened. Then, and only then should there be any question. It is sick to ask them to do what they do for us and then to make them prove their innocence based on anything the enemy ever says.
Similar threads
