Retribution is a useful purpose.
The Iraqi government might have been happy to let the U.S. courts-martial try them. The trial of Saddam Hussein was a logistical and security nightmare; three lawyers were murdered, one who was wounded in an assassination attempt fled the country, and the first judge resigned in mid-trial. Retalitaions for the Mahmoudiya incident have been even more graphic, with soldiers from the same unit being kidnapped, tortured and beheaded. It’s possible that there’s not a defense attorney in the whole country willing to defend them.
Considering that the Bush administrations and the military continue to brag about the the wonderful jewel that this the new Iraqi judicial system this is bullshit. Or they are lying.
Either way the whole thing is bullshit. They raped and murdered an Iraqi civilian and killed her whole family. They deserve an Iraqi trial. If they didn’t want to subject to an Iraqi court they should not have murdered Iraqis (including children) in cold blood.
Welcome to the jungle.
Of course they’re lying. It’s the Bush administration.
That doesn’t alter my point. Hell, it just renforces it.
Was Immanuel Kant a jungle dweller? Are all retributivists jungle dwellers? What percentage of Western legal scholars do you think are retributivists?
Agreed, but why have we never completed a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis? Perhaps there’s something else we use in place of one, but if so, it appears to be well hidden.
A bit of transparency on how things are handled could clear Strunk’s bitch right up.
And since they are all liars, what makes you think what happened in Kentucky was fair? This guy deserves death. There is no doubt about what he did. He would have been hanged in Iraq, in a trial that is as fair as anything the military would give to its own.
Sorry I blew up. What you said about talking to the family sounded patronizing but I accept that you didn’t mean it that way. I’ve already said that I reject the OP’s broadsides against the military but I wouldn’t presume to tell the Iraqis, especially any surviving family members, how THEY should feel about us or suggest to them that they need any perspective. The demonic face that criminals like these put on the entire US military in the minds of the people we’re occupying is just another one of their crimes. There is already a possibility that some other guys from their unit were killed by insurgents specifically in retaliation for what these guys did. The GI’s on the ground in Iraq who have to clean up after guys like that and face the possibility of getting kidnapped, tortured or murdered in revenge are probably the first ones who would like to see these guys hang. They didn’t do the military any favors.
Retribution is useful in theory. However, in practice the benefits are so low that I am not willing to give the epistemological leeway that in theory, and in practice, allows miscarriages of justice on a heavy scale to occur when we have all means to stop it by not imposing the DP.
Are you willing to die for an ideal? Hey, “don’t do the crime” if you’re not willing to pay the price :rolleyes:
I said the Bush administration were liars. So far as I know, the soldier was not tried by the Bush administration, but by the military.
Now, what makes me think the trial in Kentucky was fair? Well, for starters, they found him guilty. They also gave him a very heavy sentence, and the only reason it wasn’t heavier was because he agreed to co-operate in the prosecution of the members of his unit more directly responsible for the massacre. The sentence seems entirely in keeping with the severity of his crimes, weighted against his willingness to testify against even worse criminals. I have no objection to this sentence, and (being opposed to the death penalty) am glad that he’s not going to be executed.
Well, if was good enough for Saddam Hussein, why isn’t it good enough for this soldier?
The OP’s sideswipes aginst the US military were way over the top, but there does remain the question of why US citizens based in other countries are not subject to the laws of those countries, when (technically) the US is at peace with them.
Heavens, I couldn’t say. Tell me.
Saddam Hussein was a member of the US military?
Who is the head of the military? You know, the Commander-in-Chief?
Which was part of the sweetheart deal he got.
Lucky for him. None of this would have been necessary if the trial was in Iraq. The military as an organization saved these guys. All members of that organization are a part of this.
He might get out in 10 years. He was part of the murder of an entire family including children and one of the children was raped.
Was George Bush one of the judges at the court martial? Was Condoleeza the prosecutor? Do you have any actual evidence that Bush monkeyed with the outcome of this trial, other than the fact that the verdict didn’t sate your bloodlust?
I wouldn’t call 100 years in prison a “sweetheart” deal. Unless maybe I was trying to make a prison-rape joke.
As I understand US law, the trial could not have been handled by an Iraqi court. US soldiers are tried by the US military. I’m open to correction if I’m wrong on this count.
As to you claim that the military “saved” these guys, you’re clearly deranged. They’ll probably end up executing at least one of the accused. The rest are going to prison for a long, long time. If that’s the result of collusion within the military to cover these soldier’s asses, the military clearly has some stunningly incompetent conspirators.
“Eligible for parole” is not the same thing as “will be paroled.” The odds against this guy walking free in 2017 are remote in the extreme. If he does, come back and post about it then, and we can all join in the outrage. Right now, you’re just making yourself look hysterical and ignorant.
Is that so? If that’s what you think, you’re very wrong. We have a Status of Forces Agreement with every country that we are based in, and it specifically dictates under what terms military members can be tried under. There have been numerous cases where the military has turned someone over to local authorities for trial.
I bet there was a real fair negoation for this agreement.
“We just invaded your country, we now occupy your country, we killed many of your former leaders and rest are on the run, we have thousands of armed individuals in your country (some which are capable of murdering entire families to cover up rapes), now do you want to disagree with our terms?”
negotiation
Anytime there’s a plea offer for anything less than the maximum in a gruesome case somebody’s going to be outraged. It’s hard to say in any case exactly why prosecutors in any given case offer one plea offer or another, but in a case with facts this hideous it generally isn’t giving some poor sap a break. The fact that they offered him a deal to aviod the death penalty in return for testifying against the others could be due to evidentiary problems, which is often the problem when you’ve got multiple defendants. Could be a case of “first one to talk gets a deal,” or they might consider him to be the least of the offenders and want the death penalty on the others.