NationStates Jolt Archive

Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/army-recommends-death-for-accused-gis/20060902140709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Haven't seen any similar threads on the first two pages so...

The tail end of the story of the four soldiers who say they were ordered to shoot up all males at an alleged Al Qaeda camp.

Whichever side is lying through their teeth, it's a pretty sordid story.

Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/army-recommends-death-for-accused-gis/20060902140709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Haven't seen any similar threads on the first two pages so...

The tail end of the story of the four soldiers who say they were ordered to shoot up all males at an alleged Al Qaeda camp.

Whichever side is lying through their teeth, it's a pretty sordid story.

don't care really... as long as all the guilty soldiers are brought to justice.

edit: I meant I don't care what the punnishment is.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all instances. It is unfortunate that these soldiers may face it, but it is more unfortunate that their superiors will face no punishment whatsoever.

That is of course if they are truly guilty. From what they say they had an order to attack all men of military age in a terrorist training camp, they also said that one of them were stabbed, and they shot back in self defense.

However, if they are guilty of a cold-blooded murder, then let them hang.

But is am more inclined to believe a NCO's story than some LTC who is tryin to cover is ass for giving an illegal and faulty order.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all instances. It is unfortunate that these soldiers may face it, but it is more unfortunate that their superiors will face no punishment whatsoever.

I agree completely with this.

But is am more inclined to believe a NCO's story than some LTC who is tryin to cover is ass for giving an illegal and faulty order.

I also agree completely with this. I hope this trial is a fair one. I have a great deal of faith in the US Army, but I also know how things work from time to time.

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder? i have yet to see anyone explain why a murderer shouldnt be treated the way he treated his victim in a way that used any reasonable logic. a list of crimes that should get the death penalty, and unfortunately very often don't:

-murder
-rape
-sexual assault
-child molestation
-child pornography
-drunk driving, if the violation injures anybody. if it doesn't, there should still
be a very hefty sentence.
-essentially, violent and sex-related crime generally, since america doesn't reintegrate felons its far more merciful to get rid of them than have them live a cut-off life. also, lifetime prison sentences for murder, rape, etc. are very expensive and a conviction is generally pretty absolute.

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder? i have yet to see anyone explain why a murderer shouldnt be treated the way he treated his victim in a way that used any reasonable logic. a list of crimes that should get the death penalty, and unfortunately very often don't:

-murder
-rape
-sexual assault
-child molestation
-child pornography
-drunk driving, if the violation injures anybody. if it doesn't, there should still
be a very hefty sentence.
-essentially, violent and sex-related crime generally, since america doesn't reintegrate felons its far more merciful to get rid of them than have them live a cut-off life. also, lifetime prison sentences for murder, rape, etc. are very expensive and a conviction is generally pretty absolute.
The death penalty is barbaric. Very few civilized countries exercize the death penalty in todays society.

Looking over your list, it is easy to see that you will never be a lawmaker in the US.

I'm glad that our Army does take matters like this seriously. Our side or not, war crime should not be tolerated.

Yea. Death Penalty debate!

Shall I bring in Twains comments yet again? Hell why not. Circa 1905ish

THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

<snip>

A-guuuuuuhhhhh...

*slaps self*

That was quite eloquent.

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder?
Using the reasoning that murder is the killing of innocents and that that deserves the death penalty:
In the event that an innocent man is put to death, which inevitably will and probably has happened, all who were involved in the conviction, the judge, jury, prosecutor and those that through their votes support the death penalty, are guilty of murder and deserve the death penalty.
A paradox of sorts.

I'm glad that our Army does take matters like this seriously. Our side or not, war crime should not be tolerated.

More like, "our side or not, getting caught should not be tolerated".

Maybe they're asking for the death penalty cause they know that no judge in today's climate would ever sentence that on an American soldier.
So it's there for good PR with the Arab world.

Maybe they're asking for the death penalty cause they know that no judge in today's climate would ever sentence that on an American soldier.
So it's there for good PR with the Arab world.

Good PR with the Arab world? Is there any possibility of that anymore?

===

And does anyone else feel that the ICJ is going to get involved in Iraq pretty soon (2010-ish)

Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/army-recommends-death-for-accused-gis/20060902140709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Haven't seen any similar threads on the first two pages so...

The tail end of the story of the four soldiers who say they were ordered to shoot up all males at an alleged Al Qaeda camp.

Whichever side is lying through their teeth, it's a pretty sordid story.

The Army recommends they FACE the death penalty.

There is no verdict yet!

Good, I hope they die. Their crimes are unexcusable even a time of war and they will get what they deserve. They give a bad name to all the servicemen and women.

Good, I hope they die. Their crimes are unexcusable even a time of war and they will get what they deserve. They give a bad name to all the servicemen and women.

Ah, nothing like presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. :gundge:

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder? i have yet to see anyone explain why a murderer shouldnt be treated the way he treated his victim in a way that used any reasonable logic. a list of crimes that should get the death penalty, and unfortunately very often don't:

-murder
-rape
-sexual assault
-child molestation
-child pornography
-drunk driving, if the violation injures anybody. if it doesn't, there should still
be a very hefty sentence.
-essentially, violent and sex-related crime generally, since america doesn't reintegrate felons its far more merciful to get rid of them than have them live a cut-off life. also, lifetime prison sentences for murder, rape, etc. are very expensive and a conviction is generally pretty absolute.

There's no way to guarantee that innocent people will not be killed. At least a person convicted of a crime that they didn't commit can be released and restetution made. You can never release an innocent dead man.

It doesn't deter crime. It doesn't matter why it doesn't deter crime or why one might think that it must. It doesn't.

In a just system of justice you must allow people to appeal their sentences. DA's frequently argue against allowing exculpatory DNA evidence. That alone shows that the system isn't concerned with justice.

For some of us it isn't a case of no particular person deserving to die. It's a matter of it being impossible to institutionalize it in a just fashion.

For others it's a matter of the state not being entitled to commit murder just because a murderer does. It's tantamount to saying we should have state appointed rapists to rape rapists.

As for your drunk driving one, it's a facet of the justice system that's always bothered me. If someone puts a gun to my head and pulls the trigger but the gun jams, is that person any less of a threat to society than if his gun hadn't chosen that particular moment to stop working? No. Next time he'll do the exact same thing with a better gun. Why should you be punished any less severely for the same actions just because you accidentally didn't do all the harm you wanted to? Or vice-versa, why should you be punished harshly for something people do all the time, but in your case someone accidentally died or got hurt as a result? (e.g. burglers injuring themselves breaking into houses and then suing the homeowners.)

The death penalty is barbaric. Very few civilized countries exercize the death penalty in todays society.

Looking over your list, it is easy to see that you will never be a lawmaker in the US.

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Quite a few civilized countries use it though.

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder? i have yet to see anyone explain why a murderer shouldnt be treated the way he treated his victim in a way that used any reasonable logic.

So, you punish the crime of killing someone by killing someone? That's hypocracy.

"Don't kill people, it's wrong

But if you do, we'll have to kill you!"

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Quite a few civilized countries use it though.
Basically, the US is in step with some African countries and most Asian countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png

Barbaric punishment for a barbaric crime. :rolleyes:

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder?
The social repercussions of death are far more vivid and long-lasting than the personal. When a person has been killed, that's it for them. Nothing more can occur; it is their ultimate consequence. However, those close to him experience a far greater punishment; that of living with the grief. The actual disciplining is disproportionately incurred upon those who committed no crime. That is no justice at all, and will result in yet another of the ever popular spirals of death our world seems to create with such reckless disabandon.

Basically, the US is in step with some African countries and most Asian countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png

Singapore and the U.S. sharing spots on the list. And yet Real Americans™ bitched and whined when some Darwin Award contender was about to get his naked ass caned for being an asshole.

Go figure. Some animals are More Equal than Others especially when they're Americans.

The social repercussions of death are far more vivid and long-lasting than the personal. When a person has been killed, that's it for them. Nothing more can occur; it is their ultimate consequence. However, those close to him experience a far greater punishment; that of living with the grief. The actual disciplining is disproportionately incurred upon those who committed no crime. That is no justice at all, and will result in yet another of the ever popular spirals of death our world seems to create with such reckless disabandon.

Isn't it a possibly worse fate to be stuck in Leavenworth or whatever prison these guys will go to for the rest of your life? Confined spaces, boredom, rape for 50+ years, unless someone stabs you to death, I suppose. It's something to consider.

You can make sangria in the toilet, though, so maybe it's not so bad.

I'm against Death penalty in all cases, but if this is true (remember, they still hvae to face a judge) let them rot in Prison instead of a quick way out.

Singapore and the U.S. sharing spots on the list. And yet Real Americans™ bitched and whined when some Darwin Award contender was about to get his naked ass caned for being an asshole.

Go figure. Some animals are More Equal than Others especially when they're Americans.

Well you kind of left off the fact the Press left out a some detail in the canning affair.

The fact Singapore has punitive tarifs for owning a car.

The car the kid tagged cost 240000 US.

Most people changed their stance when that bit of info was gleaned.

I ran into Americans who lived there when I was over there and they all said the kid deserved it.

snip
Quite a few civilized countries use it though.

China, Saudi Arabia and UAE are civilised?!

You really don't know much about world politics, do you?

If you think those countries are civilised, go there and - oh, I don't know - wander around wearing shorts and t-shirt and telling people that the bible is good and that their government needs reform.
When in China, wish the Dalai Lama a happy birthday and tell an official that you think Taiwan and Tibet deserve to be independent nations. Email your opinions to someone overseas while you're at it.


If you manage to get out, feel free to head over to Singapore, use a public toilet, leave without washing your hands, chew gum in public and meet up with 5 of your friends on the street without first getting a government-approved permit to do so.

Then come back and tell us that they're civilised countries.

China, Saudi Arabia and UAE are civilised?!
China is highly civilised (doesn't it have the oldest written history in the world...?), as are Egypt, Japan, and the US (even though we try to lose this distinction as often as possible...)

China, Saudi Arabia and UAE are civilised?!

You really don't know much about world politics, do you?

If you think those countries are civilised, go there and - oh, I don't know - wander around wearing shorts and t-shirt and telling people that the bible is good and that their government needs reform.
When in China, wish the Dalai Lama a happy birthday and tell an official that you think Taiwan and Tibet deserve to be independent nations. Email your opinions to someone overseas while you're at it.


If you manage to get out, feel free to head over to Singapore, use a public toilet, leave without washing your hands, chew gum in public and meet up with 5 of your friends on the street without first getting a government-approved permit to do so.

Then come back and tell us that they're civilised countries.

You're one to talk.

You uh, failed to mention the faults of some other countries too.

You're one to talk.

You uh, failed to mention the faults of some other countries too.

Wrong, no other countires halve faoults.

why do people oppose the death penalty for murder? i have yet to see anyone explain why a murderer shouldnt be treated the way he treated his victim in a way that used any reasonable logic. a list of crimes that should get the death penalty, and unfortunately very often don't:

-murder
-rape
-sexual assault
-child molestation
-child pornography
-drunk driving, if the violation injures anybody. if it doesn't, there should still
be a very hefty sentence.
-essentially, violent and sex-related crime generally, since america doesn't reintegrate felons its far more merciful to get rid of them than have them live a cut-off life. also, lifetime prison sentences for murder, rape, etc. are very expensive and a conviction is generally pretty absolute.

Why do people oppose it? Because it's not perfect.

Why do other people oppose it? Because it's wrong to kill someone, even if they have killed someone else.

Why do yet others oppose it? Because it's not a good enough punishment to give someone the easy way out.

Me? I just think it's hypocrisy. "Killing people is wrong. If you kill people; We'll kill you."