Defending the Truth

How do you know they were civilians? Were you there? I give the troops the benefit of the doubt. They are fighting an enemy how wears civilian clothes. The democrats will do anything they can to undermine our effort in Iraq and that is not supporting the troops. That is the subject matter and I just addressed it. If you don't like the answer, I can't help that. That is my answer.

It is typically a MILITARY COURT which is trying them in the first place.
Why do you give the "troops" who are accused the "benefit of the doubt", while not doing the same for the troops who are accusing?


No. You're trying to change the subject, AGAIN.
Look at the first page of posts in this thread and show me where we were talking about what you are now talking about...

Why can't you just admit it that the DEMOCRATS support the troops health regarding head injuries MORE THAN the Republicans do?

How can I admit what I don't believe. Are you going to twist my arm? Are you going to make me stand in a corner until I agree with you? Are you going to tell Howard Dean that I'm not falling in line? You have your opinion and I have mine. Get over it.

Again, you resort to the "opinion" situation when the facts are clear, and they aren't pretty for you...

The democrats supported giving a larger amount of money for head injuries, while the Republicans evidently want a much reduced amount of money...

That's not an opinion.

If your argument is centering on your capability to be stubborn and refuse to acknowledge the truth, then that's pretty sad!

Yes I am ex-military, however, I was no officer, I worked for a living.

Foundit, the goal was for the phase in to be complete by the end of 2007, right now, Aug 2005, 85% - For once the military is actually ahead of its goal.

dmk

Because in this country an individual is innocent until proven guilty. The justice system is working. Something occurred, evidence has been gathered, investigations completed, and know the matter will go to a trial. At which time evidence will be presented both supporting and contardicting the event, and finally a jury will deliberate and determine the guilt and/or innocence of the accused.

dmk

Sarge, I have no quarrel with anything you said, and agree with it whole-heartedly.
The statements I made were in context to somebody who was trying to ignore the charges against the military members because he would give the military members the "benefit of the doubt". He was also trying to blame the charges brought by a MILITARY court on democrats...

I believe the charges should be taken seriously, but as you pointed out the military members ARE STILL innocent until proven guilty. My point was purely that the charges should not be ignored because we give the military members the "benefit of the doubt". Both the charges and the accused deserve the same "benefit of the doubt".

At the same time, I did not add on "innocent until proven guilty", which wasn't really the point of my post by would have made my post more well-rounded. I was not insinuating that the charges should get "the benefit of the doubt" while the accused does not get one. The point was that we should not blindly overlook the charges. And as you pointed out, we should also never blindly assume guilt, but require proof.