One wonders how it is that you arrive at this conclusion? Is it only necessary to support the DP as an effective deterrent/punishment, and to apply it as the law proscribes if you happen to be the governor of a state in which the law calls for it, in order to be labelled an execution ‘enthusiast’?
[/QUOTE]
I suppose that this referred to the time when Bush was governor of Texas, and, in order to appear to be tough on crime and win points for the upcoming election battle, he denied every single appeal for pardon, and ordered the execution instead, even in cases where it was obvious from the request that serious miscarriage of justice had occured, meaning that the people on death row weren’t the ones that had done the crime; or were under-age at the time they committed the crime (which is against the UN charter to apply the death Penalty then!); or were foreign nationals, …
Even if he didn’t want to let the criminals go, many requests were for re-trial, because of new evidence, new witnesses, or overlooked evidence, or forced (false) confessions - but Bush denied the requests and ordered the executions instead.
Similar, he could have (as has already been stated) changed the death penalty to a life-long sentence in case of underage criminals or foreign nationals - but he didn’t.
So some people, call him an execution enthusiast, or - like me - a murderer.
I have seen no evidence that the Iraqi “victims” were not al Qaeda. Have you?
[/QUOTE]
May be you have forgotten the fine details of such pesky non-American things like the Geneva convention which says that once you have taken people prisoner, you aren’t allowed to shoot them in cold blood? And that appears to be the accusation - killing people in cold blood, claiming self-defense during fighting.
If the prisoners were killed after being secured - then it’s a crime.
If the people were shot during fighting (in self-defense) - then it’s not a crime.
And that’s what the trial has to find out.
If it turns out to be a crime, and the self-defense story a cover lie, then the question of death penalty becomes relevant, and if Bush will give a pardon, because of that portion of the population who think it’s okay for American soldiers to kill “the enemy” (=all foreigners) without any restriction, because that’s war and all that. (When the Geneva convention has quite a number of restrictions.)
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I guess all those years in Saudi Arabia have dulled Paul’s American values such as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
[/QUOTE]
No not really. It goes without saying that they deserve a trial. It seems obvious that if the facts are as presented, they deserve to be killed.
Of course, one can only wonder how far up the chain of command we will let the lethal injections to continue.
I have seen no evidence that the Iraqi “victims” were not al Qaeda. Have you?
[/QUOTE]
Is that the kind of democracy our soldiers are dying for in Iraq? A democracy where the accused must prove they are not guilty, or else be executed?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
This much you can be sure of: this will be one long, drawn out process. And The Leader will remain entirely consistent with his refusal ever, ever to discuss it until every last “I” is crossed and every “T” dotted.
[/quote]
You left yourself with some wiggle room there, since we don’t know what you mean by dotting evey “I” and crossing every “T”. But are you implying that Bush should comment on this trial before a verdict is reached? If not,what are you implying? Of course, I should know better than to ask that…
Given the length of time for these types of trials and the length of time for the appeals process, you sure are going out on a limb on this one! I can just see you ripping up the casinos in Vegas, you little better you.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
In general I reckon that soldiers in combat situations are ‘agents’
they are trained to be automata
if they get out of control they are not responsible
well normal rules don’t apply
If this is the case I am thinking it is, which it might not be, it was a targetted rape, killing the witnesses and burning the girl’s body.
I would treat that case as a civilian offence.
[/QUOTE]
First, it was already mentioned in an earlier post that this case isn’t about the girl who was raped, but another case.
Secondly, if that’s your view of what soldiers are like, it only confirms my anti-military stance. Yes, unfortunately, the infamous brainwashing of the US boot camps aims to make automatons of soldiers who don’t care about killing. Yes, unfortunately, soldiers are considered professionals of killing, not “democratic citizens in uniform” (like in my country). Yes, unfortunately, the Geneva code of conduct for civilised nations seems to be largely unknown in the US military (and civilian population), and whatever this special UMCJ describes, apparently not enough hours of instruction are spent on it. (Or maybe only on those parts about how to correctly salute a superior officer?)
That doesn’t make it any less a crime, and doesn’t mean the soldiers should be given a free pass, because “soldiers can’t help it if they go beserk”. If this is truly the case, then the US military needs to clean up its act - as it failed to do after the massacres of Vietnam; as it failed to do after the latest Abu Ghraib violations, as it has always failed, so the next massacer of civilians or prisoners is just a question of time.
And no, soldiers of other countries don’t do this regularly. Maybe because they are trained differently? Maybe because the society is less militaristic? Or maybe because the people there know that using uncontrollable madmen to fight for “freedom and democracy” is a bit counterproductive?
[QUOTE=Monty]
Since the Uniform Code of Military Justice does provide for the death penalty for certain crimes, it’s quite obvious that “being a Soldier” is not grounds enough to protect a convicted individual from the death penalty.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, really? I guess that explains why the linked article starts off with “Army investigator recommends death penalty.” Also, why I was talking about clemency from the death penalty, which you can only get if you’ve been given the death penalty in the first place. Also also, why I was specifically talking about George Bush giving these soldiers clemency, and not what sort of punishment was available under the UCMJ.
None the less, your correction was valuable and informative, and I thank you for it.
[QUOTE=constanze]
And no, soldiers of other countries don’t do this regularly. Maybe because they are trained differently? Maybe because the society is less militaristic? Or maybe because the people there know that using uncontrollable madmen to fight for “freedom and democracy” is a bit counterproductive?
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe our European allies have better education systems where students are taught to think instead of just to pass standardised tests?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Gee, really? I guess that explains why the linked article starts off with “Army investigator recommends death penalty.” Also, why I was talking about clemency from the death penalty, which you can only get if you’ve been given the death penalty in the first place. Also also, why I was specifically talking about George Bush giving these soldiers clemency, and not what sort of punishment was available under the UCMJ.
None the less, your correction was valuable and informative, and I thank you for it.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome. And my comment was obviously (to me, at least) addressing the bit about “being a soldier” in the comment I was addressing.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
In general I reckon that soldiers in combat situations are ‘agents’
they are trained to be automata
if they get out of control they are not responsible
well normal rules don’t apply
[/quote]
In general, I’d reckon that you’re are completely wrong on that. You wouldn’t happen to have any actual evidence, other than “common knowledge,” that supportrs those assertions?
Or, since they’re Soldiers in the US Army and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a specific code of United States law, specifically prohibits kidnaping, rape, and murder, it can be treated as an offense under that particular code of law, for which they, as noted, may face the death penalty. If the US military decides to relinquish jurisdiction, or if the government of Iraq does (the procedure depends on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the two countries), then the local civilian courts–not the Iraqi military–could prosecute the case.
My point is that there’s no reason to say “treat this as a civilian offense.” It is being treated as a criminal offense, and that doesn’t change if it’s the UCMJ or the host country’s law being applied.
I expect to manuever to evade. Oh, he’ll make some airy gestures about assuming responsibility, some promises about thoroughness. But will it cause him to ponder, to wonder how many other civilian deaths don’t pass muster? Will stern orders come down from on high, demanding full investigation and disclosure?
Or is anyone here fool enough to believe that this only happened twice?
The only thing really really odd about this is the Iraqi reaction, or the lack thereof. That part, I really don’t get.
And no, soldiers of other countries don’t do this regularly.
Maybe because they are trained differently? Maybe because the society is less militaristic? Or maybe because the people there know that using uncontrollable madmen to fight for “freedom and democracy” is a bit counterproductive?
[/QUOTE]
Well, in my country, they do. Three soldiers and NCOs operating in Ivory Coast are curently prosecuted for executing a locally well-known highway robber, after he had been wounded and captured, in the ambulance that was transporting him to the hospital. And it’s not like the military was deeply shocked with this behavior, since the general commanding the french forces in Ivory Coast is indicted too for covering it up when the case came to his knowledge.
I’ve no illusion that any counry is fielding an army of saints. In the case I mentionned, they were professionnal soldiers, but draftees also commited atrocities during the Algeria war. Send enough Italian draftees (or whoever else) in Irak to replace the american uncontrollable madmen, and you’ll hear the same kind of stories (and of curse there are many you won’t hear about. I’m fully convinced this story is only the tip of the iceberg, and that many, many equally odious crimes have been commited but will never become public knowledge).
The only difference might be the general feeling of indifference re. war crimes, the Geneva convention, the handling of “terrorists”, etc… that seems to come from the White House, and might have a negative impact on the behavior of troops (or their commanding officers).
I’m not saying that training, society’s outlook, etc… doesn’t play a part. I’m just saying that the US army in Irak, though apparently having little interest in the Iraki population’s well-being and safety, resulting in many probably avoidable deaths, doesn’t appear exceptionnally unruly to me. Look at the behavior of the Russian army in Chechnya for a point of comparison.
