Army to Seek Death Penalty for Accused US Soldiers

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]
I sense a trend…

I’m as anti-DP as they come, but if it’s on the books and the crime fits, how can the Army not seek it ? The political consequences of leniency would not be positive, either, particularly in Iraq. The accused are pretty much screwed - I hope they got the right ones, at least.

[cynical]How do you say “pour encourager les autres” in Arabic ?[/cynical]
[/QUOTE]

I do not believe that the death penalty is mandatory in any case under U.S. law (in other words there is no crime that you can be convicted of that would carry the death penalty as the mandatory sentence). It is a discretionary punishment that has to be actively sought.

122

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I thought we decided that the firing squad was more therapeutic. If it went high enough should we draw lots from the common citizenry (like jury duty) to shoot the civilian part of the chain of command or should that duty still lie with the military?

123

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
For one thing, governors do not order new trials; courts (judges) do. I’m unaware of Bush ever allowing an execution to go forth in light of probative DNA evidence to the contrary.
constanze, please…I’m trying to be respectful here. …
…Seriously, do you have any idea how silly this type of thing sounds?
[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court gets a chance to order a new trial in every death penalty case but it did not elect to do so in any of those cases where there was so much compelling exculpatory evidence, does that make the Supreme Court a bunch of death penalty enthusiasts? After all, the Superem Court brought back the death penalty in 1976 after a brief hiatus of 3 years, they’re the ones who waited until 2005 to declare capital punishment for crimes committed as a minor unconstitutional? Bush is not a murderer, he is merely a liar (whose lies result in death).

I do not support the death penalty (unless someone can prove that there is a significant deterrent effect, you’d have to make the same argument for juvenile offenders) but just because other governors grant clemency (in some cases, they ALWAYS grant clemency) and Bush doesn’t (in fact it looks like he is the most killingest governor in the country since 1976) make him enthusiastic about the death penalty (although I think he is). And even if he were there is a different standard here, in 1995, he was representing the will of Texas, which has a history of being the killingest state in the union. On the other hand the Federal government has not executed anyone since 1960. Its not that there aren’t any soliders on death row, its just that noone ever gets around to killing them.

124

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. If a soldier is ordered by his commanding officer to do something against the law…if he obeys an illegal order, we don’t excuse him. It’s not a question as to whether the order is right or wrong, just legal or illegal.

125

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, no. If a soldier is ordered by his commanding officer to do something against the law…if he obeys an illegal order, we don’t excuse him. It’s not a question as to whether the order is right or wrong, just legal or illegal.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not speaking legally, I’m speaking ethically. Most of us don’t say, “Well, it’s legal, so it’s fine” even when the person can claim to be just following orders.

126

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m not speaking legally, I’m speaking ethically. Most of us don’t say, “Well, it’s legal, so it’s fine” even when the person can claim to be just following orders.
[/QUOTE]

Then you have the individual putting putting his own individual morality ahead of the law, and you get anarchy that way, if everyone can say, “I’m not going to follow this rule because I don’t like it”.

127

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Then you have the individual putting putting his own individual morality ahead of the law, and you get anarchy that way, if everyone can say, “I’m not going to follow this rule because I don’t like it”.
[/QUOTE]

Are prosecutors required to seek the death penalty? If not, then wanting them to seek it despite ostensibly being against it is odd to me. If they are, then I have problems with both laws.

128

[QUOTE=col_10022]
(in fact it looks like he is the most killingest governor in the country since 1976…
[/QUOTE]
:: sigh ::

No, he isn’t!

Have you been reading this thread at all?

Again…he was governor of a huge state with many people on death row whose time of execution had arrived. Given that that appropriate juries, judges and appeals courts all determined that execution was lawful and proper in these cases, Bush declined to step in and stop them. This no more makes him a ‘killer’ or ‘murderer’ than any of the various appeals court judges and/or Supreme Court justices who likewise declined to step in and stop them.

129

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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]

Got any proof for that ridiculous comment?

[qoute] Because the people who’s country did not are still there.
[/quote]

And that proves that those released were done so “only because their country complained long and loud” exactly how?

In a very meaningful sense it’s Cuban territory, rented by the US btw. Too bad you don’t seem to understand the concept of logical support for assertion.

Trivialities and the Law are certainly no strangers. Too bad you can’t seem to grasp that either.

130

[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. 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?
[/QUOTE]
Hold on there Starving Artist. I agree with a lot of what your are lecturing constanze about especially the part about not accusing the officers of having given an illegal order without solid proof.

The I run into the aside underline above. That sounds to me like a not too veiled accusation that this judge decided the case on the basis of politics rather than the law, constitution and precedent. Otherwise why would a mention of who appointed her be worth making? So I assume that you have evidence that you would be willing to take into court that she decided the case in that fashion.

131

[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]

Impeachment is up to Congress. Criminal indictment is up to the Justice Department. Have you forgotten which party controls both?

132

Four things:

1.) I wasn’t ‘lecturing’ constanze. I was offering what I hoped was helpful information, which she/he seemed to accept in the sprit in which it was intended, thank you very much.

2.) It wasn’t me who posted the part about not accusing the officers of having given an illegal order without solid proof.

3.) Yes, it was my intention to allude to the fact that, given that she was appointed by Carter – the most inept president of my lifetime if not the entire country’s – it is entirely within the realm of possiblility that she finds herself on the bench because of her political leanings, which may therefore make her more likely to look unfavorably upon actions taken by a Republican administration attempting to navigate heretofore uncharted waters in an effort to keep the country safe from terrorist attack.

4.) No, I do not have evidence I would take into a court of law. But, why do you ask? Is there some new rule of which I’ve not been made aware that one’s opinion may not be expressed unless he/she has evidence suitable for a court of law? And if so, how does this work vis-a-vis the board here? Given that most of us are laypeople and not schooled in the vagaries of the courtroom, do we have to run our opinions past a poster who happen to be a lawyer first in order to find out whether our evidence is indeed admissable in a court of law, or what?

Just askin’, don’tcha know.

133

The above was, of course, intended for David Simmons. My apologies for any confusion.

134

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
…Carter – the most inept president of my lifetime if not the entire country’s – …
[/QUOTE]

Maybe was, but the bar been raised. * Way* raised.

135

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Four things:

1.) I wasn’t ‘lecturing’ constanze. I was offering what I hoped was helpful information, which she/he seemed to accept in the sprit in which it was intended, thank you very much.

2.) It wasn’t me who posted the part about not accusing the officers of having given an illegal order without solid proof.

3.) Yes, it was my intention to allude to the fact that, given that she was appointed by Carter – the most inept president of my lifetime if not the entire country’s – it is entirely within the realm of possiblility that she finds herself on the bench because of her political leanings, which may therefore make her more likely to look unfavorably upon actions taken by a Republican administration attempting to navigate heretofore uncharted waters in an effort to keep the country safe from terrorist attack.

4.) No, I do not have evidence I would take into a court of law. But, why do you ask? Is there some new rule of which I’ve not been made aware that one’s opinion may not be expressed unless he/she has evidence suitable for a court of law? And if so, how does this work vis-a-vis the board here? Given that most of us are laypeople and not schooled in the vagaries of the courtroom, do we have to run our opinions past a poster who happen to be a lawyer first in order to find out whether our evidence is indeed admissable in a court of law, or what?

Just askin’, don’tcha know.
[/QUOTE]
Your are correct that it was another who spoke of needing proof that officers ordered the killing of civilians. Sorry that I confused another post.

Read like a lecture to me, but that’s just opinion.

However this post contains some assertions that are not backed up by any cites. I.e. Carter is the most inept president in your lifetime if not ever which seemed to be stated as a fact. It seems to me that you castgate constanze for that inthis post.

At least you say that you intended to deride the judge as quite possibly making a political ruling because of who appointed her. I guess Carter is the only president in the whole history of the US who as appointed a judge who was thought to be a political ally.

And, of course, in order to keep the US safe from terrorist attack the first thing to do is to curtail civil liberties and spy on us and pass a complex revision of existing laws that few in Congress had time to read. And I don’t blame Bush for Congress not reading the USA Patriot Act but I do blame him for the frenzied fear mongering that lead to it.

136

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Maybe was, but the bar been raised. * Way* raised.
[/QUOTE]
Bush lusted in his heart twice? :eek:

Oh, I know what you mean!

Yeah, he may have two daughters to ask for advice…

but at least they’re no longer adolescents. :smiley:

137

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Your are correct that it was another who spoke of needing proof that officers ordered the killing of civilians. Sorry that I confused another post.

Read like a lecture to me, but that’s just opinion.

However this post contains some assertions that are not backed up by any cites. I.e. Carter is the most inept president in your lifetime if not ever which seemed to be stated as a fact. It seems to me that you castgate constanze for that inthis post.
[/quote]
The difference is that I’m stating an opinion and not going by something I remember reading in the past. Also, I’m not in the habit of gratutiously posting cites. Isn’t the normal practice to post a cite after being requested to do so (in the event that the challenged comment is site-provable, that is)?

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
At leaat you intended to deride the judge as quite possibly making a political ruling because of who appointed her. I guess Carter is the only president in the whole history of the US who as appointed a judge who was thought to be a political ally.
[/quote]
Uh…no, I doubt it. What makes you come to this conclusion?

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
And, of course, in order to keep the US safe from terrorist attack the first thing to do is to curtail civil liberties and spy on us…
[/quote]
Sorry, but I just can’t get to worked up over this wiretapping thing. Maybe it’s because I have nothing to fear. Ask me again if and when it gets to be abused and then perhaps I’ll feel differently, but for now to deliberately turn a deaf ear to conversations that can lead to information on terrorist activity in order to save lives seems to me to be almost criminally naive and foolish.

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
…complex revision of existing laws that few in Congress had time to read. And I don’t blame Bush for Congress not reading the USA Patriot Act but I do blame him for the frenzied fear mongering that lead to it.
[/QUOTE]
How about blaming the terrorists for it for a change…they’re the one who caused it, not Bush.

138

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
How about blaming the terrorists for it for a change…they’re the one who caused it, not Bush.
[/QUOTE]
How about blaming the terrorists for what they actually do? Namely senselessly kill people in an entirely inappropriate response to what they consider as legitimate gripes. As the actions of the US soldiers who are the subject of the thread demonstrate, people do have inappropriate responses to continued pressure from conditions over which they have no control.

The terrorists did not, repeat did not, dictate our response to their actions. We could have taken a deep breath, a step back and, working with other countries, made this a police matter. We had, for a short time most of the worlds sympathy, except for a few in the Middle East and Indonesia who celebrated the destruction of 9/11. And that act right there would have told us that we ought to find out why they celebrated. And it wasn’t, in my opinion, because the “hate freedom.”

And I only blame Bush for a hurried, slapdash proposal that is the USA Patriot Act and for insisting that if, in his opinion and his alone, an action is necessary he can disregard the law. No one, I repeat no one, is saying that wiretapping isn’t necessary and legal. But warrantless wiretapping is.

I blame this spineless and careless congress for the USA Patriot Act in its original form. Very few members bothered to look into what the act did. If made wholesale changes to existing laws and in order to find out what it actually did you would have to “storyboard” it and by all contemporary account, little of that was done because there wasn’t time. Wasn’t time to analyze a wholesale change to existing US law by the body that is charged with making the law. What a farce.

In conclusion I also blame Bush for the hubris of believeing that he, at best a subpar performer in everything he tried to manage on his own, was qualified to be the chief executive officer of the United States.

Oh yess, I also blame those who voted for him and especially those who voted for him twice.

139

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Oh yess, I also blame those who voted for him and especially those who voted for him twice.
[/QUOTE]

So do I, but that list is incredibly short. Remember, Sandra Day O’Connor only had to vote for him once to annoint him President…

140

[QUOTE=David Simmons]

…And that act right there would have told us that we ought to find out why they celebrated. And it wasn’t, in my opinion, because the “hate freedom.”

…And I only blame Bush for a hurried, slapdash proposal that is the USA Patriot Act.

…I blame this spineless and careless congress for the USA Patriot Act in its original form…What a farce.

…In conclusion I also blame Bush…

Oh yess, I also blame those who voted for him…
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I realize that your blame is misplaced. That is why I said what I did above. I know that if it weren’t for our stupid, incompetent, murderous and evil president, our lazy congress, and the support of over half of the Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing voting public, and the common-sense knowledge that trying to find out why terrorists hate us would accomplish nothing given that they are eagerly slaughtering people all over the world in their zeal to kill or convert the entire planet, things might have gone the way you would have preferred. Fortunately, that didn’t happen.