In my country, also, we understand that using uncontrollable madmen in the military is counterproductive. Thus the training on military law and ethics, to mention just two things.
I have a question for you: Why do you say “apparently having little interest?” Seems to me that a lot of our military there are concerned about the local population and a very few aren’t.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I just don’t understand this.
What are we doing in Afghanistan ? Hunting down and killing al Qaida soldiers.
What did these soldiers do? Killed al Qaida soldiers.
So could someone explain why some soldiers get a medal and others the death penalty for the same military service ?
[/QUOTE]
BING-fucking-OH!
Former U.S. Army soldier here. WTFO?!?!
Torture and degradation are SOP at a hellhole prison in Iraqd one lousy fucking enlisted is sent to trial over the thing, while senior officers and civilian contractors who made the rules are allowed to skate. Now this?! Are you shitting me?!
I’m
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
BING-fucking-OH!
Former U.S. Army soldier here. WTFO?!?!
Torture and degradation are SOP at a hellhole prison in Iraqd one lousy fucking enlisted is sent to trial over the thing, while senior officers and civilian contractors who made the rules are allowed to skate. Now this?! Are you shitting me?!
I’m
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, hit the wrong damn key.
This just makes me so damn mad! Goddamnit, its the OFFICERS AND SENIOR NONCOMS who make this shit happen. When a colonel or a sergeant major get shot for this crap, then I’ll believe that UCMJ really means “justice.”
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Torture and degradation are SOP at a hellhole prison in Iraqd one lousy fucking enlisted is sent to trial over the thing, while senior officers and civilian contractors who made the rules are allowed to skate.
[/QUOTE]
Got any proof that such rules were made and, if made, senior officers and civilian contractors made those rules?
Plus, more than one person faced trial in that prison caper.
[QUOTE=constanze]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Wow! This post was so full of holes and/or errors and/or misunderstandings of the legal system in both Texas and the U.S. that I hardly knew where to begin. But now I find, in reading some of your posts to other threads, that you are from Germany and are apparently apallingly ignorant of the legal system here…and since it doesn’t appear - given your obvious mindset - that anything would be accomplished by pointing out your errors to you, I will spare myself the time and energy it would take to walk you through them.
Instead, I will simply point out that you don’t have anywhere near the understanding of what goes on in this country’s legal system to make the kind of accusations you’re making regarding Bush’s tenure as governor, and as a result everything you think you know about it is incorrect…as is your belief as to what the word “murderer” means.
It’s true that he never stopped a single execution, that he mocked Karla Faye Tucker before he killed her (and after which he addressed cameras and gave a phony “somber” performance lying about how tough the decision had been for him). It’s true that he asserted that there was no possibility Texas had ever executed an innocent person. He definitely was as enthusiastic an executioner as any governer in recent memory and he has shown no indication that he was ever been encumbered by any twinges of conscience or doubt, or that he has any ability to recognize that errors in the system could possibly exist.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I just don’t understand this.
What are we doing in Afghanistan ? Hunting down and killing al Qaida soldiers.
What did these soldiers do? Killed al Qaida soldiers.
So could someone explain why some soldiers get a medal and others the death penalty for the same military service ?
[/QUOTE]
You have no clue who those soldiers killed.
There’s a trial because the military operates under what is known as “rules” - rules that at least try to uphold some basic fucking decency in situations where people can easily slip into barbarism. Killing prisoners is against the rules - it’s murder. Killing non-combatants is against the rules - it’s murder. If the situation in occupied Iraq makes it hard to tell the difference between those who fight and those who don’t, well, that was rather predictable, wasn’t it ?
If the soldiers’ defence is that their orders were that “every military-aged male in such-and-such area be killed” turns out to hold water, they’re still in trouble, as they should be. Ordering soldiers to not accept surrender would be the classic example of an illegal order - and it was pretty well established (about 60 years ago, at Nuremberg) that “I was only following orders” is not sufficient defense.
If they were in fact issued such orders, I hope the charges move up the chain of command to whoever gave the order. But that does not take them off the hook.
If they just became unhinged, went on a killing spree and then concocted a cover story - throw the book at them.
Why defend these guys ? If the charges are true, why would anyone want such people to deface your country’s uniform ?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Would you, for whatever reasons, support the imposition of the death penalty, and why? Further, would you support the intervention of Presidential clemency. And why.
[/QUOTE]
I’m morally opposed to the death penalty, so no I would not support its imposition in this case. However, my feeling is if the death penalty is still a punishment in the military legal system this crime would be one for which such a penalty would be appropriate (assuming the accused are guilty.)
Yes, I’d support a Presidential clemency if the men are convicted and sentenced to death. Any other sentence I do not think the President should interfere.
[QUOTE=Miller]
It’s good that they’re seeking the maximum penalty possible for this crime. They aren’t trying to sweep it under the rug or minimize what’s alleged to have occured. It’s bad that the maximum penalty possible happens to be the death penalty. I’m very much against the death penalty, and would like to see it abolished. Despite that, I would be opposed to granting these soldiers clemency, unless there are some very powerful reasons why they should be treated any better than any other murderer on death row. “Being a soldier,” needless to say, is not powerful enough.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a matter of being better or worse. Almost every row in the United States who is on death row is in a state prison and has been sentenced to death for violating state laws (and thus a matter for a state Governor.) The President generally cannot be involved in state clemency/pardons. However when it comes to military and federal courts the President indeed has this sort of authority and even responsibility to at least consider clemency.
[QUOTE=constanze]
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.
[/QUOTE]
He’s definitely not a murderer. Murder is a legal term not one to be bandied about hyperbolically. And under no statutes that George Bush lives under would “failure to grant clemency” meet the definition of criminal homicide/murder.
In general you also need to recognize that Governors and Presidents in your run of the mill pardon/clemency request don’t get involved personally. These executives have offices that deal with all pardon/clemency requests, lawyers analyze the case and the pardon/clemency request and then make a recommendation to the governor. In general it is not appropriate to grant clemency or pardon simply because a bunch of people really want you to do so, or because you feel pity for the person.
I’ve said many times I strongly oppose the death penalty, but if I were to be elected governor of Virginia, I wouldn’t commute all death sentences because I feel it would be inappropriate for me to contravene the laws of the land which in the Commonwealth of Virginia spell out execution as a punishment for certain special crimes.
I would in general follow the advice of my legal counsel, and most of the time that advice would be against granting clemency or pardon. For clemency and pardons are only supposed to be granted in extraordinary circumstances where the executive feels that a proof of innocence has been made or that a punishment has been given that is inappropriate for the crime. Keep in mind the delibartion to grant pardon or clemency is not a legal proceeding, and executives are generally expected to only act in extraordinary circumstances.
Also, nothing to do with the UN would affect my decision. As Governor or President I would be expected to follow the statutes of the state/nation, not documents from the UN.
Agreed with Martin and other unnamed co-inspirators. What I was suggesting, as one who agrees about the moral reprehensibility of the death penatly, was to impose the death sentence (at the very least, to mollify Iraqi critics) without any actual intent to carry out said sentence. Delay, drag the feet, exhaustive appeals with a capital X…
In other words, lie.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It’s true that he never stopped a single execution
[/quote]
…and thus he did not override the lawful decisions made by the various judges, juries and appeals courts that had access to all the facts regarding the crime at hand. He followed the law and took the action that he thought was appropriate under the circumstances. I would rather have a governor in office that did that rather than take it upon himself to override legally proscribed punishment for political reasons.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
…that he mocked Karla Faye Tucker before he killed her
[/quote]
Come on, Dio, you know as well as I do that he didn’t ‘kill her’. He simply followed the procedure established by law and declined to commute her sentence.
I will grant you that he mocked her, however there are certain killers that I would mock, and mock quite readily, yet I’m hardly ‘enthusiastic’ about having to execute anyone and I would much prefer to live in a world where no one did anything to deserve it…much like Bush himself, I would imagine.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
…and after which he addressed cameras and gave a phony “somber” performance lying about how tough the decision had been for him).
[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. People often put up a false front when confronted with distasteful decisions and it occurrs to me that his mocking of Tucker may have just been an ill-formed attempt at using humor to defray the distastefulness of the situation. Or he may have felt, as I do in such situations, that it’s ironic that she plead for mercy in light of the fact that she had none whatsoever for whoever it was that killed, and that it was this that he was mocking. Then, given the genuinely somber occasion of her actual execution, he may have very well felt the gravity of the situation. This may or may not be the case, but I don’t think one can just automatically assume he was being disengenuous by his manner after the execution.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He definitely was as enthusiastic an executioner as any governer in recent memory
[/quote]
I disagree. He was governor of a huge state with a large population on death row, and as such he was placed in the position of signing death warrants and declining clemency more than governors in other states. The fact that he followed the will of the juries and courts which legally proscribed which punishment these offenders were to receive does not, ipso-facto, translate to enthusiasm for the punishment. As I said, I’m sure Bush would prefer to live in a world in which no one murdered anyone else in the first place.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
…and he has shown no indication that he was ever been encumbered by any twinges of conscience or doubt, or that he has any ability to recognize that errors in the system could possibly exist.
[/QUOTE]
IMO, it wouldn’t really behoove anyone in a leadership position to go around acting like they weren’t sure they were doing the right thing. Texas law and the judges, juries and appeals courts that have been set up in this country to make these kinds of decisions had already spoken, and Bush’s role was to examine the evidence and see if anything warranted the overriding of the courts’ decisions. The fact that he found nothing to warrant overriding these decisions does not mean he was eager to execute people.
Further, in his position I would not allow myself to be plagued by such doubts either. It is the role of the courts to determine whether or not someone should die for their crime(s). The governors role, vis-a-vis clemency, is to make allowances for extenuating circumstances should they arise, not to make every attempt to ferret one out so as to thwart the will of the people and the laws of the state. The fact that he found no extenuating circumstances does not equate to enthusiasm for the death penalty.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
It’s not a matter of being better or worse. Almost every row in the United States who is on death row is in a state prison and has been sentenced to death for violating state laws (and thus a matter for a state Governor.) The President generally cannot be involved in state clemency/pardons. However when it comes to military and federal courts the President indeed has this sort of authority and even responsibility to at least consider clemency.
[/QUOTE]
True enough, but prior to being President, he was Governor of Texas, where he, to use Starving Artist’s phrase, “did not override the lawful decisions made by the various judges, juries and appeals courts.” If, after all those executions in Texas, often for far less serious crimes committed by far less competent people, he suddenly decides that these particular murderers deserve clemency, I’d have a problem with that. It would say, to me, that he considers murder by soldiers somehow more excusable or forgivable then murder committed by private citizens. When, of course, it should be precisely the opposite.
To be honest, though, I very much doubt he’ll give them clemency if they get convicted.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Wow! This post was so full of holes and/or errors and/or misunderstandings of the legal system in both Texas and the U.S. that I hardly knew where to begin. But now I find, in reading some of your posts to other threads, that you are from Germany and are apparently apallingly ignorant of the legal system here…and since it doesn’t appear - given your obvious mindset - that anything would be accomplished by pointing out your errors to you, I will spare myself the time and energy it would take to walk you through them.
Instead, I will simply point out that you don’t have anywhere near the understanding of what goes on in this country’s legal system to make the kind of accusations you’re making regarding Bush’s tenure as governor, and as a result everything you think you know about it is incorrect…as is your belief as to what the word “murderer” means.
[/QUOTE]
If you mean that I don’t have detailed knowledge of the US or Texan legal system, because I’m not a lawyer or anything related - yes, that’s quite true. However, I didn’t invent these things; I may have used wrong terms, and I can’t provide details (because it’s been several years since I read and heard these reports, several of them in german), but I’m quite sure I got the main gist of it right. And these reports were written either by journalists from respected newspapers, were made by journalists from respected TV stations interviewing Americans engaged in the debate, were initatives based upon the work of an American law professor and his students at an American university…
So I would be interested to hear about the mistakes in my post, other than those related to non-correct specialised legal language.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Got any proof that such rules were made and, if made, senior officers and civilian contractors made those rules?
Plus, more than one person faced trial in that prison caper.
[/QUOTE]
But no high-ranking officer was charged over the Abu Ghraib scandal; the media reported that the Pentagon had known about the torture for one year and had neither stopped it nor investigated it on its own; and one of the guys in White House (darn, I’ve forgotten his name :smack: ) said right at the beginning that “the gloves were comming of now”, indicating to the lower command structure what was expected.
Depends on how his base reacts, which includes quite a number of people whose reactions to things military is entirely predictable, emotional, and irrational. They can put a lot of pressure on GeeDubya, if they so chose, because they are the die-hards.
However, I very much doubt the situation will arise. This will not get through the courts before GeeDubya leaves office, and there isn’t a pole long enough for him to touch it with. This subject is radioactive at plutonium levels, weapons grade. He won’t be caught dead making any sort of pronouncement, short of lauding the bravery of our heroes, etc.
Still and all, the silence on this subject from the Iraqi street is perplexing. One would imagine that our enemies would be eager to exploit the implications, especially in the cases involving rape. Similar incidents in Korea and Okinawa provoked huge demonstrations of outrage. I find this puzzling. Perhaps they have gotten to the point of being so enmeshed in their internecine, sectarian violence they no longer give us much thought? Dunno.
I’m not sure I understand how these murders are being distinguished from all the other sanctioned murders our soldiers have committed in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
…and thus he did not override the lawful decisions made by the various judges, juries and appeals courts that had access to all the facts regarding the crime at hand. He followed the law and took the action that he thought was appropriate under the circumstances. I would rather have a governor in office that did that rather than take it upon himself to override legally proscribed punishment for political reasons.
[/quote]
How is it a “political reason” to order a retrial if strong doubts about the legality of the first trial (evidence not admitted, confession forced) have come to light? New evidence (because of better forensics, like DNA testing, for example) has come to light, that point to somebody else as murderer?
If the governor’s job is only to sign the execution order because he mustn’t doubt anything happening, because every trial (esp. in Texas!) is fair and just and correct - then why have an appeals process at all, if it’s just pretense? And if you really, honestly, believe that all courts in Texas, all trials, are fair and just and made the right decision, you should look at various iniatives, for example the famous one a Law Professor started with his law students, who found staggering errors in over 200 cases of death penalty.
Yes, we certainly don’t want a governor who stops to think for a moment, or has doubts about the process, because then he might decide it’s time to reform the courts so justice is served better again. Or generally, a governor who stops to think from time to time isn’t what we want, we want somebody who does what the law says - until he becomes president and ignores the Constitution…
[QUOTE=constanze]
So I would be interested to hear about the mistakes in my post, other than those related to non-correct specialised legal language.
[/QUOTE]
Constanze, I see that Martin Hyde has already addressed your previous post, and he has said just about everything I would have said in regard to it. I would be hard pressed to offer a more concise, reasoned explanation than his.
Regards,
SA
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
He’s definitely not a murderer. Murder is a legal term not one to be bandied about hyperbolically. And under no statutes that George Bush lives under would “failure to grant clemency” meet the definition of criminal homicide/murder.
[/quote]
I call somebody who kills somebody else in cold blood for egoistic purposes (not accidentally, not self-defense and so on) a murderer. Bush had several cases where evidence was clear that the person in death row was innocent; he signed the order to execute them, and his motivation was to appear tough on crime for the election.
If Bush has that little regard for people’s lives that he can’t spare the time and effort to personally read the appeals adressed to him, then I call that callous. And I wasn’t talking about feeling “pity” for a person, but those clear cases about innocence.
But would you take your time to make sure that each death sentence was arrived at after a fair and correct trial and not railroaded some black person? Would you start everything in your power to change the laws of your state legally to abolish the death penalty? Or would you not let your personal convictions interfere?
Yes, the UN has no binding status for the US, only for civlised, democratic countries who signed the charter. 