NationStates Jolt Archive

Ho hum...

So what do you get for pulling a disabled policeman out of his house and murdering him in cold blood by 10 bullets to the head?

Not much.
HAMDANIYA DEFENDANTS

Sgt Lawrence G Hutchins: Guilty of murder, conspiracy, making a false statement, theft; 15 years in prison

L Cpl Robert Pennington: Guilty of conspiracy to murder, kidnapping; eight years in prison, demoted; now free

L Cpl Tyler Jackson: Guilty of conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, making a false statement, housebreaking; 21 months in prison, demoted; now free

Cpl Marshall Magincalda: Guilty of conspiracy to murder, theft, housebreaking; 448 days in prison, demoted; now free

Petty Officer Melson Bacos: Guilty of conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, making a false statement; One year in prison, demoted; now free

Cpl Trent Thomas: Guilty of conspiracy to murder, kidnapping; demoted, dishonourably discharged; now free

L Cpl Jerry Shumate: Guilty of aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice; 21 months in prison, demoted; now free

Pte John Jodka: Guilty of aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice; 18 months in prison, demoted; now free


In the case of Robert Pennington, sentenced to eight years and imprisoned in february, well... six months has to be sufficient, doesn't it?
In making the decision, Lt Gen James Mattis considered the defendants' ages, military experience, rank and involvement in the death, the marines said in a statement.

He reduced the sentences of Pennington and others to ensure fair treatment, the marines said.

I'm not surprised. I have little to no faith in the US Military Justice system. I do not believe that they're able or willing to prosecute the soldiers who commit criminal acts in a combat zone - unless it's for politial reasons. And this is just another example of how meaningless a conviction is under this system. We've seen it before and we will see it again.

I say that this system is unfit to deal with possible war crimes, had the political will to prosecute such crimes existed in the US.
Only one of the defendants remain in prison. Lawrence Hutchins, who was the only one convicted of murder, was sentenced to 15 years earlier this month.
At least the Sergeant who actually pulled the trigger remains in prison.

His case is reportedly under review.
Oh right... :rolleyes:


Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6943511.stm

I never did get why the military gets to police itself like that, other parts of our government are designed with checks and balances in them for a reason (even if at times they are not always successful)

It just does not make sense to have a self contained system of justice like that

Oy. The idea makes it more possible for corruption.

I just pray that nobody gets hurt...

Civilian who sits in their car while their friend kills someone: Death
Soldier who drags a police officer out of his house and kill him: 15 years
Laughing at the people who will inevitably defend this: Priceless, but not worth it.

Civilian who sits in their car while their friend kills someone: Death
Soldier who drags a police officer out of his house and kill him: 15 years
Laughing at the people who will inevitably defend this: Priceless, but not worth it.

15 years, but granted clemency... when? He'll never serve 15 years. Wanna bet he does less than two?

15 years, but granted clemency... when? He'll never serve 15 years. Wanna bet he does less than two?

Once they hype dies down he'll be out with a demotion and a stern talking to.

I never did get why the military gets to police itself like that, other parts of our government are designed with checks and balances in them for a reason (even if at times they are not always successful)

It just does not make sense to have a self contained system of justice like that
I actually agree with military tribunals (although not the outcome of this particular case). In civilian life, if I shoot someone I will almost certainly be punished. Self-defense may pop up, but there's plenty of space in between the two. In war, it's first of all assumed that killing will take place, and secondly, it's harder to judge whether the killing was justified. The group who understands what's happening on the ground is more qualified to judge these people.

That being said, it does leave more room for corruption. But I would rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent convicted.

15 years is fucking bullshit.

That man needs to be lynched while the others have everything they own impounded, auctioned off, and then spend the rest of their lives in prison.

You know, normally I'd try defending my nation, but I'm not bothering. Not this time.

Fuck you U.S. Military and your travesty of "justice."

I'm not surprised. Where I live, US marines drop in and have R&R. Once in a while, one or two marines sexually assault a local girl - and the US military want the matter heard not in a local court but they want to handle it. Of course, they handle - nothing happens.

To quote Groucho Marx, "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."

And this is why I say the US is a crock of shit when it comes to applications of justice.

If they won't police themselves, someone else will. I expect these people to go home, and end up killed gruesomely. I don't use the term murder because their guilt is already assuaged.

Barring that, spreading their names, addresses and names worldwide seems like a fair response. Never let the scum come out of their homes without being hounded for what they did.

Yadda yadda "US" yadda, Yadda "Military" yadda.

Get the fuck over yourselves. Yeah, this is a terrible decision. Yes, the US military tribunal screwed the pooch.

SO FUCKING WHAT. No system is perfect, or even close to it. Britain's legal system had the seven guys fitted up for a bombing they never comitted. France's has had continued problems with treating minorities fairly.

Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.

All institutions have their problems.

Some have more than others.

As for military policing, a separate agency should be commissioned for the explicit purpose of military crimes. That would solve problems of corruption (in a perfect world. We may get lucky.). Just about the only time I would support more government.

Yadda yadda "US" yadda, Yadda "Military" yadda.

Get the fuck over yourselves. Yeah, this is a terrible decision. Yes, the US military tribunal screwed the pooch.

SO FUCKING WHAT. No system is perfect, or even close to it. Britain's legal system had the seven guys fitted up for a bombing they never comitted. France's has had continued problems with treating minorities fairly.

Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.

But those of us who live in the U.S. can throw stones, right?

Yes. <grabs large slab of granite>

I used to be a defender of the military, and even America, but I cannot defend this BS anymore. I hate how this bull cockey always happens, and how Americans will always defend this, and if you speak out against the atrocities, then you are a liberal scumbag that hates america. Well, guess what, I am a liberal scumbag, and I very much hate AmeriKKKa and its heartless killing machine.

Aww jeez not this shit again. I just don't know how anyone could defend this.

On a slightly off topic and less serious note, your law-makers are attacking people like ESRB, industry-policing organisations a GOOD job of policing their industries. Although that's very different. There's a point I'm trying to make about hypocrisy and failing to.

Yadda yadda "US" yadda, Yadda "Military" yadda.

Get the fuck over yourselves. Yeah, this is a terrible decision. Yes, the US military tribunal screwed the pooch.

SO FUCKING WHAT. No system is perfect, or even close to it. Britain's legal system had the seven guys fitted up for a bombing they never comitted. France's has had continued problems with treating minorities fairly.

Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.

The thing is that the French and Brit public generally don't believe they have the divine right to police the world anymore......Or that, overall, their crap stinks that much better than anyone elses. When the US gets off its high horse, then you can feel unfairly victimised.

No system is perfectis that supposed to be an excuse?

Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.

Strangely military prisons are known as the glasshouse in the UK.

Strangely military prisons are known as the glasshouse in the UK.

Odd name. What's the derivation?

United Beleriand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dododecapod View Post
No system is perfect
is that supposed to be an excuse?

I see no need for an excuse.

I see no need for an excuse.

You don't? Somewhere between 600,000 and a million dead and two million refugees tells me the rest of the world needs an apology more than your lack of an excuse...

I see no need for an excuse.

And yet you see a need to excuse the so called "Defender of human rights, justice and equality" when it tramples on those self announced titles?

Yadda yadda "US" yadda, Yadda "Military" yadda.

Get the fuck over yourselves. Yeah, this is a terrible decision. Yes, the US military tribunal screwed the pooch.

SO FUCKING WHAT. No system is perfect, or even close to it. Britain's legal system had the seven guys fitted up for a bombing they never comitted. France's has had continued problems with treating minorities fairly.

Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.

Oh thats right no one can have opinions on anything unless they are perfect

Hell this is not event hat

No one can have an opinion unless the nation they happen to reside in is perfect :rolleyes:

I never did get why the military gets to police itself like that

Or why police it at all? If the army's on foreign soil, it's an act of war to kill an enemy, right? Even if there was no official war and the killed guy was not technically an enemy... */sarcasm*

I never did get why the military gets to police itself like that, other parts of our government are designed with checks and balances in them for a reason (even if at times they are not always successful)

It just does not make sense to have a self contained system of justice like that

It has always been that way. Always.
The UCMJ has existed, in one form or another, since the establishment of an Army (the Continental Army predates the Constitution).

Most militaries are under the same kind of system - separate from the civilian system.

The reason is that most actions undertaken during combat would necessitate an immediate investigation if civilian law was in effect.

We've just had a battle. We won, and now there are hundreds of dead bodies laying around. If we were civilians, we would have to investigate to see if the hundreds of dead bodies were the result of murder, or not. Every one of them. As individual cases of murder, as well as the possibility of a massacre.

Just engaging in combat would result in a legal morass that would bind up everyone (we would have to hold all of the soldiers in jail while we investigate, after all this is murder, and we caught them holding guns).

The root cause of this problem is that you have military serving as policemen in a foreign country.

Soldiers are not policemen. They live in a system designed for combat, not police work. So they're going to end up shooting people (sometimes justified, sometimes not).

It also means that when they kill without justification, the system isn't going to satisfy anyone used to civilian law.

Really, we should not use soldiers for police work - occupation, nationbuilding, etc.

Use them for what they're designed and trained for - or don't use them.

It has always been that way. Always.
The UCMJ has existed, in one form or another, since the establishment of an Army (the Continental Army predates the Constitution).

Most militaries are under the same kind of system - separate from the civilian system.

The reason is that most actions undertaken during combat would necessitate an immediate investigation if civilian law was in effect.
tified, sometimes not).
...

Additionally, there are crimes that exist in military service that have no counterpart in civilian law. There is no way to prosecute someone for disobedience, desertion, etc, except with the military justice system.

It has always been that way. Always.
The UCMJ has existed, in one form or another, since the establishment of an Army (the Continental Army predates the Constitution).

Most militaries are under the same kind of system - separate from the civilian system.

The reason is that most actions undertaken during combat would necessitate an immediate investigation if civilian law was in effect.

We've just had a battle. We won, and now there are hundreds of dead bodies laying around. If we were civilians, we would have to investigate to see if the hundreds of dead bodies were the result of murder, or not. Every one of them. As individual cases of murder, as well as the possibility of a massacre.

Just engaging in combat would result in a legal morass that would bind up everyone (we would have to hold all of the soldiers in jail while we investigate, after all this is murder, and we caught them holding guns).

The root cause of this problem is that you have military serving as policemen in a foreign country.

Soldiers are not policemen. They live in a system designed for combat, not police work. So they're going to end up shooting people (sometimes justified, sometimes not).

It also means that when they kill without justification, the system isn't going to satisfy anyone used to civilian law.

Really, we should not use soldiers for police work - occupation, nationbuilding, etc.

Use them for what they're designed and trained for - or don't use them.

I did not necessarily say they should be charged with "Civilian law" Per-Se nor through standard channels. but it still seems like a bad idea to have an organization acting as they final authority on policing itself.

I did not necessarily say they should be charged with "Civilian law" Per-Se nor through standard channels. but it still seems like a bad idea to have an organization acting as they final authority on policing itself.

It's just that it's always been that way. It generally works if you restrict your soldiers to just being in a conventional war.

As for an organization policing itself, who polices the government?

It's just that it's always been that way. It generally works if you restrict your soldiers to just being in a conventional war.

As for an organization policing itself, who polices the government?

For the most part other governmental agencies end up being a check in some form or another but in the end the people are the ones in charge of keeping the government in check.

Oh thats right no one can have opinions on anything unless they are perfect

Hell this is not event hat

No one can have an opinion unless the nation they happen to reside in is perfect :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. But if you want to make overarching comments regarding entire systems, then you'd damn well better be able to show that your system is a hell of a lot better.

And frankly, anybody who tries to do that is nothing but a damned liar.

For the most part other governmental agencies end up being a check in some form or another but in the end the people are the ones in charge of keeping the government in check.

As long as there is a functional ballot box, and the government knows we all have firearms...

I didn't say that. But if you want to make overarching comments regarding entire systems, then you'd damn well better be able to show that your system is a hell of a lot better.

And frankly, anybody who tries to do that is nothing but a damned liar.

Why in the end I am not 100 percent responsible for the current system why does a system in the country I live in have to be better then any other system in order to comment on that system?

An analogy to further explain what I mean:

I can see that if this were lets say one student commenting on another students project, you are both responsible for your project and to detract from the others while having a worse project does not make sense

But this is not this case this is a case where someone is not necessarily directly responsible for the current system nor do they necessarily have the power to make a change even if their personal idea of how the system should operate would be better.

On with a better Idea for a system should not have to shut up just because they are powerless to change the system of the country they reside in.

Why in the end I am not 100 percent responsible for the current system why does a system in the country I live in have to be better then any other system in order to comment on that system?

An analogy to further explain what I mean:

I can see that if this were lets say one student commenting on another students project, you are both responsible for your project and to detract from the others while having a worse project does not make sense

But this is not this case this is a case where someone is not necessarily directly responsible for the current system nor do they necessarily have the power to make a change even if their personal idea of how the system should operate would be better.

On with a better Idea for a system should not have to shut up just because they are powerless to change the system of the country they reside in.

I would suggest that the current system needs tweaking, to accomodate the radically different role that the military has to play on behalf of civilian authority. Policeman, nationbuilder, peacekeeper - it's just not part and parcel of what traditional militaries did when the UCMJ was first written.

You will note that the Geneva Convention isn't really well written for those situations either (not with the specificity that you find for traditional warfare between signatories).

Yadda yadda "US" yadda, Yadda "Military" yadda.

Get the fuck over yourselves. Yeah, this is a terrible decision. Yes, the US military tribunal screwed the pooch.

SO FUCKING WHAT. No system is perfect, or even close to it. Britain's legal system had the seven guys fitted up for a bombing they never comitted. France's has had continued problems with treating minorities fairly.
So you really don't see any trouble at all with this situation, where the decision to grant clemency makes a mockery of the verdicts?


Look to your own glass houses before you start throwing stones.
Oh. OK. Well, it's been nice having you around NSG while it lasted. Too bad you can't and won't ever post in anything but the fun social threads again. See you around the forum! :)


Oh, and what nationality do you think I belong to?

Really, we should not use soldiers for police work - occupation, nationbuilding, etc.

Use them for what they're designed and trained for - or don't use them.

I've got a better idea: let's train our military to do those tasks as well as what they do. In the world of these times our military should really serve as a defensive force and as a Peace Corps equivalent more than anything else.

The root cause of this problem is that you have military serving as policemen in a foreign country.

Soldiers are not policemen. They live in a system designed for combat, not police work. So they're going to end up shooting people (sometimes justified, sometimes not).

It also means that when they kill without justification, the system isn't going to satisfy anyone used to civilian law.

Really, we should not use soldiers for police work - occupation, nationbuilding, etc.

Use them for what they're designed and trained for - or don't use them.
..or train them differently so that they could be used for police work, peacekeeping, nationbuilding etc.
I would suggest that the current system needs tweaking, to accomodate the radically different role that the military has to play on behalf of civilian authority. Policeman, nationbuilder, peacekeeper - it's just not part and parcel of what traditional militaries did when the UCMJ was first written.
The military judicial system should be more independent, like the civilian is (supposed to be). And politics should be kept out of it.

When they are convicted in a fair trial, let them serve their time. At least try to keep the public trust in the system and the judgements fair.

So you really don't see any trouble at all with this situation, where the decision to grant clemency makes a mockery of the verdicts?


Oh. OK. Well, it's been nice having you around NSG while it lasted. Too bad you can't and won't ever post in anything but the fun social threads again. See you around the forum! :)


Oh, and what nationality do you think I belong to?

I neither know, nor care. If you want to comment on this decision, fine, please do, it's a terrible decision. But to stretch that to a condemnation of ALL US judicial or courts-martial practice, as many posters were doing, is both unfair, and, unless they were representing some perfect and mistake-incapable system, utterly hypocritical.

I neither know, nor care. If you want to comment on this decision, fine, please do, it's a terrible decision. But to stretch that to a condemnation of ALL US judicial or courts-martial practice, as many posters were doing, is both unfair, and, unless they were representing some perfect and mistake-incapable system, utterly hypocritical.
Ok, so your rant in the last post was just that: A substanceless rant. Good to know.

And I would agree with you, had we not seen this thing happening before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Courts_martial)... And that's not the only travesty I've seen.

I'm sorry, but over the years I've lost all faith in the US military justice system and it's willingness to deal with murderers, war criminals, and criminal acts commited in war zones and on the battle field.

..or train them differently so that they could be used for police work, peacekeeping, nationbuilding etc.

Sorry, the US military hasn't really been designed for those things. It takes about 20 years to effectively change doctrine, and retrain enough people. It took at least that long to make fairly minor changes in AirLand Battle, and that was when there was both political will and money to do so.

The military judicial system should be more independent, like the civilian is (supposed to be). And politics should be kept out of it.

One could make the argument that politics is out of it more than it would be in a civilian court. Sure, it could be more independent, and within the military, it is in its own domain. That said, if you want it changed, you'll have to overcome at least two centuries of legal precedence.

When they are convicted in a fair trial, let them serve their time. At least try to keep the public trust in the system and the judgements fair.

Rather than decide what's fair and unfair based on a handful of cherry picked cases, why don't we have a statistical survey of cases (and an in depth examination of each case) before we announce that the system is completely broken.

Sorry, the US military hasn't really been designed for those things. It takes about 20 years to effectively change doctrine, and retrain enough people. It took at least that long to make fairly minor changes in AirLand Battle, and that was when there was both political will and money to do so.
Yeah. Too bad the US military is poor at adapting to new situations then, and are fighting the last war all over again eh?

Just goes to show the problems plaguing the military. It's a serious and possibly fatal weakness if they can't "re-design" themselves to meet the new challenges of the world beyond the year 2000.


One could make the argument that politics is out of it more than it would be in a civilian court. Sure, it could be more independent, and within the military, it is in its own domain. That said, if you want it changed, you'll have to overcome at least two centuries of legal precedence.
Shouldn't be a problem.

Seriously. That should not be a problem.


Rather than decide what's fair and unfair based on a handful of cherry picked cases, why don't we have a statistical survey of cases (and an in depth examination of each case) before we announce that the system is completely broken.
Because this is all about my faith and trust in the system. It's all about the public trust, which is undeniably tied to the cases that's presented in the media. It does not help if a statistical survey shows that it's not a broken system if all we see in the media are terrible decisions and examples of travesties of justice such as this.

Doesn't mean I'm close-minded and won't listen if someone presents me with evidence of the contrary, however. It just means that I've yet to see any such evidence.

Ok, so your rant in the last post was just that: A substanceless rant. Good to know.

And I would agree with you, had we not seen this thing happening before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Courts_martial)... And that's not the only travesty I've seen.

I'm sorry, but over the years I've lost all faith in the US military justice system and it's willingness to deal with murderers, war criminals, and criminal acts commited in war zones and on the battle field.

Well, I don't think it was substanceless - but it was certainly a rant.

And while yes, the US military has had some awful judicial decisions, to condemn a system based only on it's worst aspects is silly. If you haven't looked at the whole system in depth, you can't know how good or bad it is.

Well, I don't think it was substanceless - but it was certainly a rant.
Take my word for it, it was. But nevermind that now :)


And while yes, the US military has had some awful judicial decisions, to condemn a system based only on it's worst aspects is silly. If you haven't looked at the whole system in depth, you can't know how good or bad it is.
No, it's not silly actually. Look at my post above. It's a matter of perception: Every justice system is based on and needs trust to function properly. The people needs to see that the system works, that the trial is fair and the outcomes just.

So you don't have to go deep and analyse the system, it's sufficient that the trust is gone for you to say that the system seems fatally flawed. When all you see in the media is stories like this, the trust is destroyed. As has happened here. I have no faith in the system anymore, and it seems like I'm not the only one.

But as I've said before, I'm open to having my mind changed. If an in-depth analysis is presented to me, my trust might be restored.

If you don't like the system by all means enlist or get a commission and work to change it. Of course you might find your butt in Iraq...where the police officer who is supposed to be on your side is shooting at you with the weapon that your government gave him. Conflicts are nasty affairs espicially when one side doesn't wear a neat uniform so that you can pick him out of the crowd. They may have been lenient on the Marines partially due to the fact that said policeman was possibly an insurgent in disguise. Oh wait!! We can't say that because that may mitigate the killing of him and heaven forbid some 20 year old get a break because he fell to the pressure of making life and death decisions everyday for six months without a break. I am sure that everyone griping about it would do a much better job.

If you don't like the system by all means enlist or get a commission and work to change it. Of course you might find your butt in Iraq...where the police officer who is supposed to be on your side is shooting at you with the weapon that your government gave him. Conflicts are nasty affairs espicially when one side doesn't wear a neat uniform so that you can pick him out of the crowd. They may have been lenient on the Marines partially due to the fact that said policeman was possibly an insurgent in disguise. Oh wait!! We can't say that because that may mitigate the killing of him and heaven forbid some 20 year old get a break because he fell to the pressure of making life and death decisions everyday for six months without a break. I am sure that everyone griping about it would do a much better job.

So nice to see that you're justifying random murder. Can I have your address please? I've had a stressful day.

So nice to see that you're justifying random murder. Can I have your address please? I've had a stressful day.

Ask him if he lives with other people, I had a stressful day too.

Kenai, Ak united states of America. Ask anywhere for John. They will send you my way. Oh yeah Alaska is a conceal and carry state...so make sure you have enough weapons, cause I hate lame gunfights. Seriously you are more than welcome to come over. Just remember I shoot back...and well.

Unless, you know, they ambush you...

That is usually the problem when thinking that you can protect yourself all the time if you have a gun (well if someone can protect themself period).

If you don't like the system by all means enlist or get a commission and work to change it. Of course you might find your butt in Iraq...where the police officer who is supposed to be on your side is shooting at you with the weapon that your government gave him.
That's absolutely not the best way to go about trying to change the system. Try "writing your congressman" or "running for office" instead. Working through the legislative branch would be the most practical way to go about improving this system.

If this had been the way such cases were handled in civilian courts you would see more vigilanteism and riots akin to the Rodney King affair. That's what happens when people loose faith in their systems of justice.

You see, justice must not only be done; It must also be see to be done

Conflicts are nasty affairs espicially when one side doesn't wear a neat uniform so that you can pick him out of the crowd.
Doesn't excuse an execution-style murder.

They may have been lenient on the Marines partially due to the fact that said policeman was possibly an insurgent in disguise. Oh wait!! We can't say that because that may mitigate the killing of him and heaven forbid some 20 year old get a break because he fell to the pressure of making life and death decisions everyday for six months without a break.
Doesn't excuse an execution-style murder.

The court wasn't lenient on them due to that, nor did the court believe the disabled police officer to be an insurgent.

I am sure that everyone griping about it would do a much better job.
Yes, so am I in fact. Most people don't go around commiting cold-blooded murder. Not even the soldiers in Iraq.