Talk:Hamdania incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed a large block of text as it was incorrect. The NyTimes article clearly states

"Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said today that President Bush was "troubled" by allegations concerning the Haditha and Ishaqi incidents, as well as the fatal shooting of an Iraqi man in Hamadiya. In that case, which was first reported Thursday by The Associated Press, military prosecutors say they are preparing murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges against seven marines and a Navy corpsman, and the death of civilians in a March attack in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad. "

This says the seven marines were being charged in links to Ishaqi not Hamadiya. Those investigations also ended finding the soldiers obeyed the proper escalation routine. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The phrase "In that case" cannot refer to the Ishaqi incident, as the Ishaqi and Haditha incidents are paired together grammatically in the sentence. Logic dictates, then, that the clause refers to the third incident, which stands alone in the text. The issue is clarified in a slightly different (later?) version of the NYT News Service text (found here[1]). Read it carefully:

"Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said Friday that President Bush was "troubled" by allegations now being investigated in connection with three incidents, news services reported. Along with the killings in Haditha, the investigations involved the fatal shooting of an Iraqi man in Hamadiya, a case in which military prosecutors say they are preparing murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges against seven Marines and a Navy corpsman, and the death of civilians in a March attack in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad."

I'll restore the deleted text to the article. 69.228.214.183 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hamadiya/Hamdania

Could someone please rename the article or at least include a redirect? Thanks. --217.235.208.92

The article now has the correct name. Juansmith 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --217.235.210.210

[edit] Merging of articles

Disagree - It is to early to say how this is going to pan out. Some of these Marines may get convicted others may not. A whole host of things may happen between now and the end of this episode. Recommend keeping them separate for now and when it is all played out then revisiting this topic.--Looper5920 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, and concur with Looper5920's suggestion to re-evaluate after the story settles out and we see if one or two of these guys prove to be William Calleys, or if they are all equally culpable. Another very, very weak (OK, indefensible) reason for keeping separate articles is that on Corporal Magincalda's page there's an external link to a fund-raising website put up by his wife and attorney to raise legal fees for Mr. Magincalda, who appears to be in a whole heap 'o trouble. Totally a violation of Wikipedia policy to allows a personal fund-raising link like that to remain, but part of me values it as at token effort to hear the other side of the story. I know, I know, I'm losing it as a Wikipedian. --technopilgrim 04:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been two weeks & the two votes have been for not merging the articles. I'll remove the tag. --69.228.81.49 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel suit against Congressman Murtha is not associated with this incident

I've removed the sentence saying the families of the accused soldiers are suing Congressman Murtha for libel. The Hamdania and Haditha cases are being confused. There is a libel lawsuit against Murtha made by a Marine accused in the Haditha incident, but as far as I know the families of the Handania defendents have not sued the congressman for anything. If I've missed a lawsuit by the family members, re-instate the sentence along with a reference. --- technopilgrim 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 2006 Conviction

I have added news of the November 2006 conviction. The article would benefit from a rewrite as it is no longer an "alleged" crime and many previously unverifed facts are now verifiable. However, the story is still unfolding so it may be best not to rewrite just yet.


[edit] Possible addition

[2] Trent is off the hook. Should this receive its own dated section (July 2007) or is there a better place to include the information? The Behnam 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The identity of the iraqi person killed is unknown

[3] The article states that the iraqi person killed in the incident was Hashem Ibrahim Awad, but this is disputed by the defense attourneys of the accused Marines, and the prosecution removed the name from the charges, identifying the man only as an unknown Iraqi man. Walterego 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent additions regarding Pennington's release incorrect

Pennington has NOT yet been granted clemency. He was simply released from the brig (and is currently reporting to duty) until General Mattis makes that decision. Also, the bit about a reduction in sentence needs to be re-worded. He took a plea deal for 8 years and reduced charges, and one of the stipulations was to testify "against" some of the others. The judge who gave him the 14-year sentence was not informed of how many years the plea deal agreement was for. Whichever was less would be the time that he served. It was NOT actually "reduced" at any time. In addition, he served quite a bit more time in jail than "a few months". The sentence includes time already served, which would be nearly 16 months. Even the time since he received his sentence (February) has been more than a few months. That part should probably be taken out completely. Can somebody that knows what they are doing please fix this? There are some really glaring errors, here.