Soldier Gets Death

[wisernow]

Well I do agree that killing comrades is wrong, the death penalty perhaps may not be warranted though in this case, because in many ways it is similar to a murder committed out of severe emotional conflict or anger which I think is quite often treated as manslaughter.

Death penalty is the most severe form of penalty, and there have been several cases where people who have committed more heinious crimes than this have not been awarded that sentence.

While guinnog’s post might not be exactly relevant to the thread, the parallel he has drawn is not much off the mark. Declaring war on a nation that is no way a threat to you and killing thousands of innocent people is a descipable crime.

One of the charges against Saddam in his trial is his invasion of Kuwait. Isn’t GWB guilty of exactly the same??

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@guinnog

So you would say that this is the first time ever US soldiers have killed other US soldiers?

Sheesh.

Not at all. Neither am I saying that this is the first time they’ve been punished for it, either.

Sheesh.

What, exactly, are you getting at here? Do Bush’s murky motives give me the right to throw grenades at people who trust me?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

of a sovereign nation during the opening days of the Iraq invasion

I agree we don’t belong there, but every time someone refers to Saddam Hussein’s Iran as a ‘sovereign nation’ it’s like nails on chalkboard. Strictly speaking that terminology is correct, of course. I realize that. But somehow it seems to grant approval of whatever atrocities the gang of thugs in power may commit on its own citizenry.

BTW, guinnog can you tell us where you got that quote?

[danceswithcats]

@Airman Doors

He won’t be executed. The military has not executed anyone since 1961, and that includes Lt. William Calley for his ordering and participation in the My Lai massacre.

Also, this is a political war, and I think the sentence will be put down to life without parole because he IS Muslim, and given that others have committed crimes more heinous than this they can try to make a case that he’s being executed because of his religion and/or beliefs. With the way things are going the military cannot afford that reputation.

That said, I think he’s scum. That could have been me that he killed. I think he deserves the death penalty, and I think you’re right that there wouldn’t be any trouble finding someone to do it, but I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

Sadly, I have to agree with you-this case will join all the others that screw around for decades without justice being served. Heck, I’d volunteer to shoot this POS, but that would deprive an enlisted soldier of the opportunity. The only choice that should be made available to him is last meal.

[JRDelirious]

@danceswithcats

Heck, I’d volunteer to shoot this POS, but that would deprive an enlisted soldier of the opportunity.

In any case, the execution method for capital “common” crimes in the military is the same as for civilians in the federal system (lethal inj.; before that it was hanging) and may be performed by DoD civilian employees.

There are people sitting at the military’s death row who have been there as much as 13 years, still tied up in the appeals process, and as Doors said, nobody has actually been executed under UCMJ since 1961.

[Martin_Hyde]

@guinnog

Well, it’s what we call here ‘satire’. Private Eye and Monty Python were famous (though far from the first) exponents of it. Or ‘shatire’ if you prefer.

Interesting to see what it brought crawling out of the woodwork. And yet here people believe that satire is finally catching on in the USA. I suppose it still has a way to go.

Can anybody really not see any connection between the brutality of the war and this young man’s actions? Or are you just pretending not to out of ‘patriotism’? The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that…

Well you ignore the fact that the men involved and Akbar were all marines that probably had not even seen combat yet considering the extremely early time in the war it occurred.

The brutality of war can certainly degrade some people’s mental health and cause incidents like this. We certainly saw that in WWII and Vietnam. That doesn’t change the fact that these incidents are criminal actions perpetrated by people who know the difference (legally) between right and wrong and understand the consequences of their ations. Unless you have opposition to the idea of military justice in general you really don’t have much of a point in this thread.

This incident occurred four days after the war began, and Akbar and his unit were still in Kuwait when he killed his comrades. I find it doubtful that he actually saw any combat at all (or any of his unit) before he threw the grenade. It’s hard to link the brutality of war to something when someone has failed to even see said brutality.

[Martin_Hyde]

Mm, correction, Army not Marines.

[guinnog]

@Martin Hyde

Mm, correction, Army not Marines.

Aren’t the 82nd Paratroops?

[guinnog]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

What, exactly, are you getting at here? Do Bush’s murky motives give me the right to throw grenades at people who trust me?

What exactly I’m getting at here is;

Don’t get into wars of aggression with limited possibility of reward and no ethical or legal justification. Do not invade countries with no real plan for the post-invasion scenario. Do not make falsely inflated claims for the abilities of your self-selected enemies to justify attacking them and then have to admit afterwards your claims were shite.

These lies will come back to you. They will haunt you. They are bad for your soldiers’ morale. They will go ape shit and murder their comrades.

Vietnam.

Iraq.

The bigger an army you have, and the crazier things you ask them to do, the more the chance of something like this happening.

[guinnog]

@guinnog

Aren’t the 82nd Paratroops?

101st even.

[Frank]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

I agree we don’t belong there, but every time someone refers to Saddam Hussein’s Iran as a ‘sovereign nation’ it’s like nails on chalkboard. Strictly speaking that terminology is correct, of course. I realize that. But somehow it seems to grant approval of whatever atrocities the gang of thugs in power may commit on its own citizenry.

Sorry, but that is a more than “strictly speaking” accurate description. Do you believe that any nation with a gang of thugs in power is not a true sovereign nation? How about any nation that is not a democracy or republic?

[guinnog]

@Liberal

And yet you let them run your brain…

Heh heh. Good one. Anything to say about the subject under discussion here?

[guinnog]

@Miller

guinnog, is it your position that the war in Iraq is somehow exculpatory in the matter of Sgt. Akbar’s murder of his fellow soldiers?

No. Causative, not exculpatory.

@Miller

I don’t understand the purpose of your posts in this thread. War is, indeed, barbarous, and the current war is particularly unjustifiable, but I don’t see how that bears on Akbar’s crime, except insofar as he would not have been in a position to commit it if we had not been in Iraq…

That is plenty for me. Means, motive and opportunity. Murder. What more do you want?

@Miller

Also, for the most part, Monty Python were not satirists. Although a handful of individual sketches could rightfully be termed satire, they were first and foremost absurdists.

Good point.

[RedFury]

@Liberal

And yet you let them run your brain…

Beats the hell of whatever sad excuse you use to claim you have one to begin with, Thesaurus Boy.

I hate to break it to you but Delusions of Grandeur ain’t exactly a compliment – unless one’s afflicted with said condition.

Care to spout some more “Truth”? Subject irrelevant quite obviously.

[Martin_Hyde]

@guinnog

What exactly I’m getting at here is;

Don’t get into wars of aggression with limited possibility of reward

Wars of aggression are typically conquering wars. This was more like a police action. Obviously it did not follow the model of collective security many of us had grown used to over th 20th century (which is stupid, because that model failed us when we needed firm action.)

We didn’t go in to annex Iraq, we went in to set up a new government. I think calling it a war of a aggression is a slight misnomer.

I’d agree that we shouldn’t get into such wars with very limited possibility of reward, but “limited” is too broad. The rewards of the Operation Iraqi freedom may be somewhat limited but that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t worthwhile. Either way the issue needs more debate and discussion than you’ve presented and more than I’m willing to engage in.

and no ethical or legal justification.

The only justification you need for war is national self-interest. If we can prove that, then the war is justified. I’d say in Iraq the jury is still out as to whether it was in the United States’ self interest.

Do not invade countries with no real plan for the post-invasion scenario.

They planned all of this for over a year before d-day. There was a plan, it mostly did not work because of underestimations. I agree of course that an invasion with no post-victory plan isn’t well thought out.

Do not make falsely inflated claims for the abilities of your self-selected enemies to justify attacking them and then have to admit afterwards your claims were shite.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that there was a systematic campaign of lies about Iraq’s capabilities by anyone other than the Baathists. The fact is for ten years Saddam Hussein has been trying to bully us and make us think he had WMD. Why? Because he felt as long as he was still seen as a madman with WMD he was untouchable by the western world. And he could also use these incidents to incite his people against America and the west (anti-Americanism is a staple of governmental control in many middle eastern governments.)

If I was a police officer and a man had his hand in a paper bag and kept pointing it at me and threatening to shoot me, I’d kill him. I wouldn’t know what was in the bag, but on the off chance it was a gun I’d kill him, his fault for being an idiot.

These lies will come back to you. They will haunt you. They are bad for your soldiers’ morale. They will go ape shit and murder their comrades.

I was in the Army, you vastly overestimate the impact the media has on soldiers who are in theater. Actually the impact is nearly zero. What causes people to go apeshit is modern war is one of the most hellish and unimaginably brutal things you could ever want to see. I participated in various actions throughout the 80s and 90s and I have the bad dreams and the cold sweats at night myself. And I consider myself to be someone who dealt with it extremely well. I never participated in anything like Vietnam, but I saw people go over the edge over less intense situations so it’s no surprise it is happening here.

The fact is soldiers will go insane during war, that is going ot be with us I think forever. Any political blunders by the President or media bitching isn’t going to do it though, soldiers don’t pay attention to that stuff. In all honesty most of them have the same interest in the nightly news and stuff like that as HS students.

You are right on the border of making a good point, that if we send men into combat we need to realize some will go over the edge. We should try to do things to minimize this: psychologists in theater, chaplains, and commanding officers that know how to try and keep stress as low as possible for soldiers in the field.

Trying to link these problems to any alleged lies of the Bush administration is either done out of you not understanding the issue or you just wanting to rip at the administration. I suspect the latter.

[Liberal]

@guinnog

What exactly I’m getting at here is;

Don’t get into wars of aggression with limited possibility of reward and no ethical or legal justification. Do not invade countries with no real plan for the post-invasion scenario. Do not make falsely inflated claims for the abilities of your self-selected enemies to justify attacking them and then have to admit afterwards your claims were shite.

These lies will come back to you. They will haunt you. They are bad for your soldiers’ morale. They will go ape shit and murder their comrades.

Vietnam.

Iraq.

The bigger an army you have, and the crazier things you ask them to do, the more the chance of something like this happening.

Everything you say about the war is correct. But tying those to what this man did is a logical fallacy. He did not have a low morale, nor did he go apeshit. His was a crime of hatred, a cowardly mass murder. He tossed grenades indiscriminately into the midst of sleeping people and then shot at the survivors as they scampered for cover. Frankly, your feeble defense of him is as ethically whorish as the war you condemn.

[bizzwire]

“But first, a little Chee-Chee?”

Sorry…could. not.resist.urge…

[Miller]

@guinnog

No. Causative, not exculpatory.

“So, if a son that is by his father sent about merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness, by your rule, should be imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of the servant’s damnation. But this is not so: the king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant; for they purpose not their death when they purpose their services. Besides, there is no king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all unspotted soldiers.” - William Shakespeare, Henry V

The war in Iraq may be illegal, immoral, ill-advised, or just flat-out evil. None of that can be blamed for the actions of this soldier. Even if you want to argue that the war created an enviroment where he could no longer tell good from evil, it is still his failing that he could not make that distinction, and no one else’s. Consider, for example, that other soldiers serving in the same war, under the same circumstances, and even coming from the same background as Akbar, are still able to refrain from slaughtering their brothers in arms. Even in armies which were inarguably fighting in the service of absolute evil are able to maintain loyalty and unit cohesion. For all the atrocities committed by the SS in WWII, at least they knew which direction to throw their grenades.

That is plenty for me. Means, motive and opportunity. Murder. What more do you want?

To determine the guilt of Hasan Akbar? Nothing. That’s plenty. To establish a causative link between his actions and the actions of his government? A hell of a lot more, I’m afraid.

[guinnog]

@Miller

The war in Iraq may be illegal, immoral, ill-advised, or just flat-out evil. None of that can be blamed for the actions of this soldier. Even if you want to argue that the war created an enviroment where he could no longer tell good from evil, it is still his failing that he could not make that distinction, and no one else’s. Consider, for example, that other soldiers serving in the same war, under the same circumstances, and even coming from the same background as Akbar, are still able to refrain from slaughtering their brothers in arms. Even in armies which were inarguably fighting in the service of absolute evil are able to maintain loyalty and unit cohesion. For all the atrocities committed by the SS in WWII, at least they knew which direction to throw their grenades.

Yes indeed. Skirting awfully close to Godwin’s Law here though aren’t we?

@Miller

To determine the guilt of Hasan Akbar? Nothing. That’s plenty. To establish a causative link between his actions and the actions of his government? A hell of a lot more, I’m afraid.

Thanks for the Shakespeare, and for your intelligent and considered response among the frothings of loonies. I see your point.

I still think the guy would not have done what he did unless he had the opportunity that participation in the invasion afforded him. But the main point of my initial schoolboy parody was I suppose to express my disgust with the unthinking conventionality of much US writing on the war. The war was avoidable, evil and recent. If this guy was mentally ill and his comrades failed to pick it up in time, perhaps this killing was unavoidable. I would rather people focussed more on aspects of life where positive change can be made, than ones where they cannot. It worries me that you can still get away with saying the war was necessary, or that opposing it is somehow anti-American, even in such (mostly-) august company as this. The OP, to which I was responding, seemed far too triumphalist to me about a situation where there is no good in sight.

100 000 dead in Iraq. No working government yet. Continuing serious violence there. Worse in Iraq.

Patriot Act. Increasing polarisation of your country, which I do not think it needed. Still no real understanding of the causes of anti-US feeling in the wider world. Increasing cynicism about politicians and heir motives. The money wasted. USD 167 000 000 000 so far and rising. (www.costofwar.com) Worse for the USA.

Worse for Britain too; a long-standing impact on our trust in politicians, which was already pretty low. Worse for people like me from here who actually quite like aspects of the USA.

Worse for everybody. So I cannot share Tuckerfan’s apparent enthusiasm (“I don’t think that they’ll have any trouble finding volunteers to carry out the sentence.”) for killing the guy. In fact in all probability he will appeal and get life in jail anyway, so the whole thing is a bit theoretical…

[bizzwire]

@guinnog

It worries me that you can still get away with saying the war was necessary, or that opposing it is somehow anti-American, even in such (mostly-) august company as this. The OP, to which I was responding, seemed far too triumphalist to me about a situation where there is no good in sight

I’m having a hard time finding where anyone has said that this war was necessary. If you feel that you have been taken to task for saying it was not, that’s because the subject of this thread is Hasan Akbar, not whether we feel the invasion of Iraq was justified or not (even though that was the gist of his defense)

It is commendable that you take no pleasure in the thought of his execution, Others, obviously don’t share your views. However, please don’t conflate the two trains of thought. Dismissing his defense that his actions were based on the illegality of the war is not the same as saying the invasion was warranted.