Army to Seek Death Penalty for Accused US Soldiers

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=constanze]
I meant, if torture is illegal under the Geneva convention (maybe even under UCMJ),
[/quote]

It definitely is illegal under the UCMJ.

Yes, that’s correct. And also why I asked if you happened to have any proof that such orders were actually issued. Most places, it’s a serious thing to falsely accuse someone of a crime and so, before making such an accusation, you really should have actual evidence on which to base that accusation.

That’s also correct. And also why it’s ludicrous to state that US Soldiers are trained to be automata. And again, “the order to torture prisoners” has not been proven to actually have been issued. Try to refrain from asserting that it existed when there is no actual proof.

You made the assertion, you provide the cite. And you might not want to rely on “I thought my reader knows this” as not everyone reads the same news. Just a suggestion, but I think it’s a pretty good one.

In the US, most people of my acquaintance take the expression “the guy in the White House” to mean “the President of the United States.” Anyway, are you talking about Colin Powell?

Got any proof that there were orders issued by senior officersd at Guantanamo? If not, let’s refrain from making accusations of criminal conduct.

102

[QUOTE=constanze]
I’m sorry, but I’ve already mentioned that the reports were several years ago - back when Bush was governor of Texas and getting ready for the election battle - so I don’t have cites handy. (Even if I had, they would be paper-editions of German newspapers and magazines.)
[/QUOTE]
Well, I can tell you that if it were provable that Bush was instrumental in allowing an innocent convict to be executed for political purposes, the U.S. media would have been focusing on nothing else since…and further, if Bush had knowingly allowed a provably innocent convict to be executed for any reason whatsoever, the U.S. media would have been focusing on little else since. And you would be hearing about it nonstop from anyone who ever even thought about being a Democrat politician.

You seem to me like an intelligent and probably quite nice person (although more than a tad chauvinistic when it comes to your perceived European superiority) who is, unfortunately, eagerly soaking up every bit of anti-U.S. and anti-Bush propaganda that comes your way. Further, it is indicative of a certain amount of arrogance that you would come onto an American message board (albeit one that is open to anyone, anywhere) and start speaking with such authority about how things are or ought to be here when you have no real comprehension as to the elements that come into play in regard to these issues.

And on preview, you do know that the Patriot Act was passed by the U.S. Congress, don’t you…with the support of many on the Democrat side of the aisle. Thus, it is not illegal. Regarding the wiretapping, one judge - a Carter appointee, not surprisingly - has recently and only recently declared it to be illegal. And this, of course, is under appeal so the issue is yet to be decided. Regarding Guantanamo and the Iraq war itself, do you really think that if these things were truly illegal in the sense you mean it that Bush would not find himself under impeachment and/or criminal charges as a result?

What you are really talking about are matters of opinion. Some people think that Bush intentionally allowed innocent men to be executed for political gain; that the war in Iraq is illegal; that Guantanamo is illegal; etc., etc. ad infinitum. The fact of the matter is that none of these issues have been held to be in direct conflict with established U.S. law by any entity empowered to make such a decision.

There is a difference between saying that you believe Bush is a criminal or a murderer, or that this thing or that is illegal, and stating it as undeniable fact. And your propensity to say things along the line of ‘I don’t care what the legal definition of murder is, to me Bush is a murderer so I’m gonna call him one’ is not going to stand you in very good stead around here…even among those who would be in agreement with you otherwise.

Just sayin’, is all…

And I see upon further preview that you’re already starting to founder when called upon to back up your assertions. It’s not a very pleasant feeling, is it? I hope you’ll continue to contribute around here and not be put off by being challenged on these things, but you are really going to have to have your ducks in row before you post declarative sentences like you’ve been doing. Conversation on the Straight Dope (in GD and the Pit anyway) isn’t like conversation with your friends and acquaintances. Everything you say will be scrutinized and you will likely be challenged almost anytime anything can be challenged. Saying things like ‘it was some black guy in charge of this or that’, or it was something that you read somewhere, or that you thought people already it, just isn’t gonna cut it.

But, having said that, let me offer you a belated welcome to the Straight Dope. You’re an interesting and very engaged person and I look forward to hearing more from you. Just please try to remember that opinion isn’t fact.

103

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think the death penalty being sought is a good idea though, if we are going to have it on the books, and don’t seek it for a case like this, then I’m not sure when we would ever use it. Obviously I’d prefer it not be on the books in the first place, but it is.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t honestly get this. Isn’t this giving as “I was just following orders!” excuse to the courts?

104

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Well, I can tell you that if it were provable that Bush was instrumental in allowing an innocent convict to be executed for political purposes, the U.S. media would have been focusing on nothing else since…and further, if Bush had knowingly allowed a provably innocent convict to be executed for any reason whatsoever, the U.S. media would have been focusing on little else since. And you would be hearing about it nonstop from anyone who ever even thought about being a Democrat politician.
[/quote]
Dream on. Bush lapdogs and spineless cowards, all of them.

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
And on preview, you do know that the Patriot Act was passed by the U.S. Congress, don’t you…with the support of many on the Democrat side of the aisle. Thus, it is not illegal.
[/quote]
Nonsense. If it goes against the Constitution, it’s illegal no matter how many of them supported it.

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Regarding Guantanamo and the Iraq war itself, do you really think that if these things were truly illegal in the sense you mean it that Bush would not find himself under impeachment and/or criminal charges as a result?
[/quote]
Not a chance. With a Republican controlled government, nothing Bush does could possibly put him at risk of either.

105

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
But given that Bush actually was bound by law as to who and how he could perform pardons it’s really a bit ridiculous for these kinds of complaints to be levelled against him.
[/QUOTE]

Well, now I will bring in his attitude against the condemned, as cited by Constanze and others above.

It is ridiculous to bash Bush for not commuting sentences of death; it is entirely valid to bash him for the mocking of those under sentence of death. I’ll make this very short: such mocking is despicable.

106

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Nonsense. If it goes against the Constitution, it’s illegal no matter how many of them supported it.
[/QUOTE]

Last I heard, it was the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, that had the authority to determine if any legislation already passed and signed into law is illegal (i.e., unconstitutional). It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in Logic to realize that for the court to make such a determnination, it must be considering something already made law.

107

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I don’t honestly get this. Isn’t this giving as “I was just following orders!” excuse to the courts?
[/QUOTE]

Huh, no. I’m not sure I understand you.

108

[QUOTE=Frank]
Well, now I will bring in his attitude against the condemned, as cited by Constanze and others above.

It is ridiculous to bash Bush for not commuting sentences of death; it is entirely valid to bash him for the mocking of those under sentence of death. I’ll make this very short: such mocking is despicable.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not really a major part of what constanze was saying though. He/she was arguing that Bush had killed people in cold blood for egoist reasons. That he had refused clemency/pardons purely for his own political gain. When your cite shows us that that really isn’t a possibility.

109

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Huh, no. I’m not sure I understand you.
[/QUOTE]

If a soldier is ordered by his commanding officer to do something evil, we don’t excuse him. So why should a prosecutor in a criminal case be given the excuse that “It’s wrong, but it’s the law, so…” If you think the death penalty is wrong, saying that it should be enforced anyway is baffling to me.

110

First, looks as if was mistaken about the DNA case: [URL=http://www.thejusticeproject.org/press/articles/science-and-the-hangman.html]Bush delayed one execution to allow DNA testing.

Sorry.

111

[QUOTE=Monty]
Got any proof that there were orders issued by senior officersd at Guantanamo? If not, let’s refrain from making accusations of criminal conduct.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, I did not express myself clearly. What I meant was not that prisoners were tortured on Guantanamo, or that orders to that effect were given there, but that (most people I know) consider the internment at Guantanmo and the treatment of the prisoners there, against International law, probably against US law (although, given what I’ve heard about conditions in normal American prisons, I don’t know how many rights American prisoners have). For example, it has been mentioned that (under the Constitution?), prisoners have a right to hear what they are accused of, and be tried in a fair amount of time, that their lawyers are to have access to them, etc. (What the English law calls “Habeas corpus”), and that several prisoners were held in violation of these laws.

Since several prisoners have been released from Guantanamo after four or five years because nothing could be proven against them, but only because the countries of their origin (England and Germany) protested long and loud to the US govt. to look into the matter, not because there was a normal trial going on.

112

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You seem to me like an intelligent and probably quite nice person (although more than a tad chauvinistic when it comes to your perceived European superiority) who is, unfortunately, eagerly soaking up every bit of anti-U.S. and anti-Bush propaganda that comes your way. Further, it is indicative of a certain amount of arrogance that you would come onto an American message board (albeit one that is open to anyone, anywhere) and start speaking with such authority about how things are or ought to be here when you have no real comprehension as to the elements that come into play in regard to these issues.
[/Quote]

Thank you for the compliment. Most posts here are also interesting to read. Yes, you are right that I don’t know the details of the US system - that’s why I rely on what people more knowledgeable than me write about it. Unfortuanetly (which is why I try to avoid these charged discussions) I have an abysmal memory (and don’t keep cites around when posting from different computers on the net), so I have a hard time making good arguments. I also get too excited (into rant mode), which is a bad thing in a good discussion. Sorry.

I meant the PATRIOT Act was illegal because it was against the Constitution, curtailing several important rights. That the Republicans have the majority in both chambers, and can therefore pass any laws, and that Bush pushed several laws, and that some judges were appointed by Bush, makes me doubt that there is at the moment any effective opposition possible on the highest political level.

As for impeachment or criminal charges: isn’t part of the problem that a major part of the population goes along with Bush as long as the war is on, because they consider it “unpatriotic” (Anti-American) to criticisze their leader during a war? Doesn’t a major part of the population believe that the curtailing of democratic rights and due process of law was necessary in the “War against terrorism”?

Yes, you are probably right. I apologize for wording my posts too hasty and not clear enough.

Thank you very much for these kind words. I’m sorry I got into rant mode - I certainly didn’t want to attack anybody personally, it’s just that over here, people have a very different opinion and so there is agreement on many points. I forgot that Americans tend to see some things from a different perspective. I also shouldn’t have posted without better cites - I’ll have to see what I can dig up from people with better memory. And - esp. since English is second language to me, so I’m not fluent in technical terms and, esp. when I’m excited, word my posts not carefully enough to make clear it’s my opinion.

113

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Or maybe our European allies have better education systems where students are taught to think instead of just to pass standardised tests?
[/QUOTE]

[thread derail]No, 'fraid not![/td] :frowning:

114

Don’t worry about it

It took me time to learn the ‘rules’ - and even now I’m not sure that I know them.

The game appears to be to cite authoritive sources

  • and to avoid getting into an argument
  • it is similar to the old maxim ‘never lose your temper’

Personally I don’t think that the Iraq fiasco is illegal, I don’t recognize ‘International Lore (sic)’ and I doubt that Bush broke US Law - although he certainly violated the Monroe Doctrine (which is a virgin of the left nostril).

I strongly subscribe to the Geneva Convention, but do not believe that it applies to non-signatories.

I think that most Straight Dopers either lurk and learn, or get the sh/t kicked out of them for being precocious.

I also reckon that rather a lot of people here are interested in hearing different views.

115

[QUOTE=constanze]
I’m sorry, I did not express myself clearly. What I meant was not that prisoners were tortured on Guantanamo, or that orders to that effect were given there, but that (most people I know) consider the internment at Guantanmo and the treatment of the prisoners there, against International law, probably against US law (although, given what I’ve heard about conditions in normal American prisons, I don’t know how many rights American prisoners have).
[/quote]

Prisoners in the Unites States have a lot of legal rights. The bit about Guantanamo is more complex than “they’re prisoners.” What I don’t understand is why you can’t seem to grasp that the US military also saw the illegal treatment (the abuse) as illegal. Thus the courts-martial of some members of the US military.

Prisoners in the US do have those rights. You wouldn’t happen to know where Guantanamo is, would you? The issue regarding the prisoners held there is complex: what is there status vis a vis the Geneva Conventions, how should they be tried, etc.

I think you’re giving as a reason what you wish to be true. I would love to see proof that it’s “only because the countries of their origin […] protested long and loud.”

116

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I strongly subscribe to the Geneva Convention, but do not believe that it applies to non-signatories.
[/QUOTE]

Haven’t all countries now signed the treaties?

117

[QUOTE=Monty]
Prisoners in the US do have those rights. You wouldn’t happen to know where Guantanamo is, would you? The issue regarding the prisoners held there is complex: what is there status vis a vis the Geneva Conventions, how should they be tried, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Um, Guantanamo is that American base on Cuba, so it counts as US, yes? And from what I’ve heard, the prisoners should either have been treated as POWs according to the Geneva convention (but Bush said they weren’t “enemy soldiers”, but “enemy combattants” or similar), or, if they weren’t POWs, as “normal” prisoners under US law, which would have meant speedy trials and visits by lawyers and all that. Instead, apparently they got neither.

118

[QUOTE=constanze]
Um, Guantanamo is that American base on Cuba, so it counts as US, yes?
[/quote]

No. It’s still Cuban territory.

Again, the issue is more complex than that. And, as mentioned, they aren’t on US soil.

119

[QUOTE=constanze]
And from what I’ve heard, the prisoners should either have been treated as POWs according to the Geneva convention (but Bush said they weren’t “enemy soldiers”, but “enemy combattants” or similar), or, if they weren’t POWs, as “normal” prisoners under US law, which would have meant speedy trials and visits by lawyers and all that. Instead, apparently they got neither.
[/QUOTE]

Bush et al made the determination that terrorists and other insurgents were not part of a formal military or militia organization…and so were not entitled to POW status. In addition, they played fast and loose with the definition of ‘enemy combatant’, linking it (at least from my own reading) with the old definition of ‘spy’…which give them even more latitude. Its basically a grey area in the GC that Bush et al are exploiting, because the GC doesn’t really define exactly what you can and can’t do with such people.

So, Bush et al interperets this that they are not afforded POW status (which I think makes sense…they weren’t formal soldiers after all but para-military criminals). That brings us to whether they should be ‘normal’ prisoners under US law. Really need a lawyer for that one, but I don’t think the US is obligated to bring foreign national formally into our civilian legal system. Right or wrong (and FWIW I think Bush and his merry men have played this whole thing wrong), its not like there is no basis at all behind the administrations position. They are exploiting the vague language of the GC for their own ends.

Here is a little light reading about the GC, as background.

-XT

120

[QUOTE=Monty]
What I don’t understand is why you can’t seem to grasp that the US military also saw the illegal treatment (the abuse) as illegal. Thus the courts-martial of some members of the US military.
[/QUOTE]
They threw a few low level poeple to the wolves when caught, that’s all. They didn’t see it as illegal, or didn’t care if they did.

[QUOTE=Monty]
I think you’re giving as a reason what you wish to be true. I would love to see proof that it’s “only because the countries of their origin […] protested long and loud.”
[/QUOTE]
Because the people who’s country did not are still there.

[QUOTE=Monty]
No. It’s still Cuban territory.
[/quote]
Can Cuba come in and take the prisoners out, or expel the Americans for that matter ? No. Therefore, it’s not Cuban territory in any meaningful sense, especially this one.

[QUOTE=Monty]
Again, the issue is more complex than that. And, as mentioned, they aren’t on US soil.
[/QUOTE]
They are is US hands, which is what matters. Do you really think that sort of triviality impresses anyone who isn’t already looking for an excuse for our behavior ?