Some Questions Arise

[Boxlicker101]

First, let me say I have no sympathy for any of the men involved in this horrible event. However, questions arise:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_re_us/army_rape_slaying

First, why did the man who was apparently the least guilty get the heaviest sentence? Second, if a sentence is 110 years, how can the convicted person get out in ten? Doesn't he have to serve more time than that? How can they give a five year sentence for raping a 14 year old girl and taking part in the murders of her and her parents?

Maybe the most important, though, is this: The terrorists or, if you prefer, insurgents, commit crimes equally as heinous or worse. Do any of them get treated as roughly by their commanders?

 

[SeaCat]

I fear that much of the sentancing in this case is due to politics.

That being said, all of those who have been found guilty need to be dropped off in the middle of the neighborhood where they commited this crime, stark naked and handcuffed.

As for the Fanatics we are fighting against. Do they do this? I'm sure they do. Are they viewed and punished by their peers for this? Some are and some aren't. It depends entirely on their comrads and their "Commanders". To some of them they view it as the end justifies the means.

Cat

 

[Pure]

it's one of those terrible crimes, according to the evidence, that will define this war. there should be harsh sentences.

that said, the rank of the person and also his ability to get a 'plea agreement' influences the sentencing. a prosecuter offers the first persons to be tried, 'sweetheart deals' to testify against the others, just as with gangs or the mafia.

as has been said in other threads, "killing insurgents" is an inherently dicey proposition, and many innocents get killed in this agenda. however in this case, iirc, the start of the action was a planned rape of the teen age girl; her family was 'offed'--as was she-- to cover up the crime. truly despicable.

does anyone remember the scene in Apocalypse Now where the patrol boat stops a small vietnamese boat, carrying a family, apparently laden with various grains and fruits, and there is a misstep and all hell breaks loose. these sorts of events are not even reported, in general.

---

PS. ok, box, "insurgents" do not follow the 'uniform code of military justice". they are 'bad guys.' that said, it's obvious that winning the populace, or at least causing them to be neutral, is an essential part of any insurgency. the kinds of events i suspect you have in mind are often 'example' killings of perceived collaborators, e.g. beheading a mayor in a village known to be friendly to the powers that be or the US.

it's surely counterproductive for 'insurgents' to rape, murder, and pillage among *supporters* of an insurgent movement, and i'd expect punishments, e.g. executions, to be meted out, accordingly.

 

[Liar]

Maybe the most important, though, is this: The terrorists or, if you prefer, insurgents, commit crimes equally as heinous or worse. Do any of them get treated as roughly by their commanders?

inportant how? This is entirely irrelevant to the case in question. Americans under American jurisdiction tried and sentenced by American law. Does it matter if someone else have a different way of dealing with things? I don't get it.

But since you asked...

I have no info on the iraqi insurgents/terrorists&/warlords/whatever. But I've read that Hezbollah execute members in their ranks, by means of hanging, for "disgraceful acts" during the reoccuring times of war. Including rape, major theft, or killing of women, children and elderly.

(Although, under certain circumstances, women, children and elderly are apprently cannon fodder, like in missile attacks against Israel. Not sure how they justify that. Probably by saying that jews are not really people, or something.)

It's a peculiar code of ethics. But yes, there is one there and it's as far as I can see enforced, sternly.

 

[Boxlicker101]

inportant how? This is entirely irrelevant to the case in question. Americans under American jurisdiction tried and sentenced by American law. Does it matter if someone else have a different way of dealing with things? I don't get it.

But since you asked...

I have no info on the iraqi insurgents/terrorists&/warlords/whatever. But I've read that Hezbollah execute members in their ranks, by means of hanging, for "disgraceful acts" during the reoccuring times of war. Including rape, major theft, or killing of women, children and elderly.

(Although, under certain circumstances, women, children and elderly are apprently cannon fodder, like in missile attacks against Israel. Not sure how they justify that. Probably by saying that jews are not really people, or something.)

It's a peculiar code of ethics. But yes, there is one there and it's as far as I can see enforced, sternly.

I am not refering to H. They are basically a well-organized and well-armed group of Palestinians occupying southern Lebanon. They arr actually a uniformed army, and constantly violate the Geneva Convention with impunity. I am referring to their ammo storage and other military emplacements among the civilian population.

 

[Boxlicker101]

it's one of those terrible crimes, according to the evidence, that will define this war. there should be harsh sentences.

that said, the rank of the person and also his ability to get a 'plea agreement' influences the sentencing. a prosecuter offers the first persons to be tried, 'sweetheart deals' to testify against the others, just as with gangs or the mafia.

as has been said in other threads, "killing insurgents" is an inherently dicey proposition, and many innocents get killed in this agenda. however in this case, iirc, the start of the action was a planned rape of the teen age girl; her family was 'offed'--as was she-- to cover up the crime. truly despicable.

does anyone remember the scene in Apocalypse Now where the patrol boat stops a small vietnamese boat, carrying a family, apparently laden with various grains and fruits, and there is a misstep and all hell breaks loose. these sorts of events are not even reported, in general.

---

PS. ok, box, "insurgents" do not follow the 'uniform code of military justice". they are 'bad guys.' that said, it's obvious that winning the populace, or at least causing them to be neutral, is an essential part of any insurgency. the kinds of events i suspect you have in mind are often 'example' killings of perceived collaborators, e.g. beheading a mayor in a village known to be friendly to the powers that be or the US.

it's surely counterproductive for 'insurgents' to rape, murder, and pillage among *supporters* of an insurgent movement, and i'd expect punishments, e.g. executions, to be meted out, accordingly.

These are all fairly low-ranking enlisted men who plea-bargained. The one who apparently did the least got the heaviest sentence. I am not excusing anybody, and I believe that at least one of the bastards got off too light. I am referring to the five year sentence there.

The terrorists, many of whom are foreigners, rape, murder and pillage among Iraqis. I am referring here to bombing schools, mosques, market places, etc., where only civilians would gather. Some of the terrorists die in those attacks, but many don't. Those are the people I am referring to. I rather doubt that they receive any punishment at all.

By the way, the example you cite, beheading the mayor of a city to bring the populace into line, is a 100% example of terrorism. Scaring or terrifying the people into not opposing them.

 

[xssve]

The fact that the insurgants do these things are probobly the only reason we've made any progress at all - you sound jealous.

In our martial culture, we value things like dicipline and morale, and these are things any good commander will maintain; without it, we're just another bunch of children with guns.

Misspelled "jealous".

 

[Boxlicker101]

The fact that the insurgants do these things are probobly the only reason we've made any progress at all - you sound jelous.

In our martial culture, we value things like dicipline and morale, and these are things any good commander will maintain; without it, we're just another bunch of children with guns.

Actually, the only reason we are there is that so many people are doing so many evil things to the Iraqi people. What we are trying to do is prevent this kind of thing from happening. If the terrorists were not murdering innocent people and destroying infrastructure, we would have left a long time ago, once Saddam was deposed.

 

[CharleyH]

I fear that much of the sentancing in this case is due to politics.

That being said, all of those who have been found guilty need to be dropped off in the middle of the neighborhood where they commited this crime, stark naked and handcuffed.

As for the Fanatics we are fighting against. Do they do this? I'm sure they do. Are they viewed and punished by their peers for this? Some are and some aren't. It depends entirely on their comrads and their "Commanders". To some of them they view it as the end justifies the means.

Cat

I dislike your eye for an eye mentality, and us against them POV SeaC. What makes your sentiment any different than the one you propose that "THE FANATICS" have?

I think that these soldiers are a serious embarrassment to the U.S. and everyone who lives there. So much for serving the country.

 

[Liar]

I think that these soldiers are a serious embarrassment to the U.S. and everyone who lives there.

How about the planet? I'm not American, but am embarrased that they are of the same spieces as me.

 

[CharleyH]

How about the planet? I'm not American, but am embarrased that they are of the same spieces as me.

Sorry, I am not American either and yes. PLANET.

 

[xssve]

Actually, the only reason we are there is that so many people are doing so many evil things to the Iraqi people. What we are trying to do is prevent this kind of thing from happening. If the terrorists were not murdering innocent people and destroying infrastructure, we would have left a long time ago, once Saddam was deposed.

I would tend to disagree with that assesment, however, we can call it a technicality, since that is not the thrust of your OP.

Typically, plea bargains are offered in exchange for testimony, the last one to talk gets hit with the biggest axe.

This serves to mitigate the punishment of those who show remorse and come clean - in theory. In praxis, it's often the only way to obtain a conviction when there are no eyewitnesses and little evidence.

See games theory: "Prisoners Dillema".

 

[SeaCat]

I dislike your eye for an eye mentality, and us against them POV SeaC. What makes your sentiment any different than the one you propose that "THE FANATICS" have?

I think that these soldiers are a serious embarrassment to the U.S. and everyone who lives there. So much for serving the country.

Charley,

If you look back through my posts over the years you would notice that my views on this type of crime, and the punishment for it is for the most part unchanged. It does not matter to me that the people raped and killed were Iraqi. They could just as easily have been other Americans and I would advocate the same punishment. (Actually my ideas on the punshment of a tried and convicted rapist is Public Castration with a dull object sans Anesthesia.)

As for the us against them point of view, which one is that? The point of view of those who follow the law and those who don't?

These Men, (No I do not consider them soldiers at this point.) Broke the law. They broke the law of the nation they were in and they broke the law of the nation they were serving.

Yes they are an embarrasment to their service and the United States, they are also an embarrasment to all human beings.

Cat

 

[CharleyH]

Charley,

If you look back through my posts over the years you would notice that my views on this type of crime, and the punishment for it is for the most part unchanged. It does not matter to me that the people raped and killed were Iraqi. They could just as easily have been other Americans and I would advocate the same punishment. (Actually my ideas on the punshment of a tried and convicted rapist is Public Castration with a dull object sans Anesthesia.)

As for the us against them point of view, which one is that? The point of view of those who follow the law and those who don't?

These Men, (No I do not consider them soldiers at this point.) Broke the law. They broke the law of the nation they were in and they broke the law of the nation they were serving.

Yes they are an embarrasment to their service and the United States, they are also an embarrasment to all human beings.

Cat

I know you do not advocate rape SeaC, Which laws do we speak here, though? American?

 

[Liar]

I know you do not advocate rape SeaC, Which laws do we speak here, though? American?

Um... If I may...

"They broke the law of the nation they were in and they broke the law of the nation they were serving."
-SeaCat

There's your answer.

 

[SeaCat]

I know you do not advocate rape SeaC, Which laws do we speak here, though? American?

Obviously American, as these were American Servicmen, and from what I have heard Iraqi. (No I have not researched the Iraqi Laws, maybe I should.) Yes I do know the Sharia Laws on Rape. (I do not agree with them by the way.)

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

Um... If I may...

"They broke the law of the nation they were in and they broke the law of the nation they were serving."
-SeaCat

There's your answer.

Not to mention, the laws of humanity and common decency. I hope they all do every second of their time, but I fear they will be released after serving a minimum.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Obviously American, as these were American Servicmen, and from what I have heard Iraqi. (No I have not researched the Iraqi Laws, maybe I should.) Yes I do know the Sharia Laws on Rape. (I do not agree with them by the way.)

Cat

The Sharia laws regarding rape are horribly distorted with, I believe, the victim considered to be the offender. Even so, there were three murders also.

ETA After I submitted this post, I went and googled this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm

This is, or was, the law in Pakistan, but I suspect Sharia laws are much the same everywhere. How any nation could ever agree to be ruled by them is beyond me.

 

[cloudy]

Actually, the only reason we are there is that so many people are doing so many evil things to the Iraqi people. What we are trying to do is prevent this kind of thing from happening. If the terrorists were not murdering innocent people and destroying infrastructure, we would have left a long time ago, once Saddam was deposed.

You actually believe this?????

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Actually, the only reason we are there is that so many people are doing so many evil things to the Iraqi people. What we are trying to do is prevent this kind of thing from happening. If the terrorists were not murdering innocent people and destroying infrastructure, we would have left a long time ago, once Saddam was deposed.

You actually believe this?????

I think everybody in the USA and UK, except maybe Halliburton, wants us out of Iraq. Some want to cut and run and some want us to stay and finish the job, but everybody wants us out eventually.

The objectives were to overthrow Saddam and locate his WMD's. We easily did the former, and there were apparently none of the latter left. After that, the objective was to rebuild the country as was needed, and help them establish a democracy. The latter may have been a bit naive, but there would have been at least a semblance of one if it hadn't been for the actions of the terrorists. I call them terrorists, rather than insurgents, because their methods are mainly those of terrorism.

As for why I believe this to be so, it is because of the history of the USA. Not since we bacame a great power have we gone a'conquering, probably the only great power that can say that. I am well aware of the "Manifest Destiny" attitude prevalent during the 19th century, whick is why I made the stipulation about being a "great power".

 

[SeaCat]

The Sharia laws regarding rape are horribly distorted with, I believe, the victim considered to be the offender. Even so, there were three murders also.

ETA After I submitted this post, I went and googled this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm

This is, or was, the law in Pakistan, but I suspect Sharia laws are much the same everywhere. How any nation could ever agree to be ruled by them is beyond me.

Okay,

I talked with a couple I know. She is a patient of mine, he is her husband. They are from Pakistan and moved to the United States about five years ago.

According to them the punishment for Rape in their area of Pakistan, (I'm not sure exactly where that was,) was death by stoning. The punishment for murder was beheading. (Now that is a real short haircut.)

They did admit that Sharia is translated differently in different areas, including inside their own home country.

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay,

I talked with a couple I know. She is a patient of mine, he is her husband. They are from Pakistan and moved to the United States about five years ago.

According to them the punishment for Rape in their area of Pakistan, (I'm not sure exactly where that was,) was death by stoning. The punishment for murder was beheading. (Now that is a real short haircut.)

They did admit that Sharia is translated differently in different areas, including inside their own home country.

Cat

Although I would never, under any circumstances, be in favor of Sharia Law, at least some of the punishments don't seem to be excessive.

 

[cloudy]

I think everybody in the USA and UK, except maybe Halliburton, wants us out of Iraq. Some want to cut and run and some want us to stay and finish the job, but everybody wants us out eventually.

The objectives were to overthrow Saddam and locate his WMD's. We easily did the former, and there were apparently none of the latter left. After that, the objective was to rebuild the country as was needed, and help them establish a democracy. The latter may have been a bit naive, but there would have been at least a semblance of one if it hadn't been for the actions of the terrorists. I call them terrorists, rather than insurgents, because their methods are mainly those of terrorism.

As for why I believe this to be so, it is because of the history of the USA. Not since we bacame a great power have we gone a'conquering, probably the only great power that can say that. I am well aware of the "Manifest Destiny" attitude prevalent during the 19th century, whick is why I made the stipulation about being a "great power".

We're still there because of the oil, and if you believe anything else, you're more naive than I thought you were.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We're still there because of the oil, and if you believe anything else, you're more naive than I thought you were.

Well, duh, it is the oil that makes the area important. However, if Iraq were pacified and an effective government were in place, and there were no terrorists going around killing people, we would have no need to be there either. It is possible that there would still be American bases there, as there are in many other nations, but we would not be an occupier, any more than we are an occupying power in Japan, Germany or England.

 

[cloudy]

Well, duh, it is the oil that makes the area important. However, if Iraq were pacified and an effective government were in place, and there were no terrorists going around killing people, we would have no need to be there either. It is possible that there would still be American bases there, as there are in many other nations, but we would not be an occupier, any more than we are an occupying power in Japan, Germany or England.

It won't happen, though. I don't see why people just don't get that they don't want us there, they don't want our "democracy," and that it isn't up to us to decide how they run their own damn country.