Sentenced to Death

[DA Aquamaster]

I understand the tide of emotional sentiment, but I think many of you are missing the larger point. Blanket parties, abuse by prison guards or inmates, billing the family for the bullet, etc are not acceptable and would discredit both this country and the armed forces and servicemen who defend this country.

It is vital that he have access to the full range of appeals and that he be humanely treated in Leavenworth while he awaits the ultimate execution of his sentence. It does not matter how heinous the crime, if we do anything less than accord him every right to which he is entitled, we lower ourselves to his level and what is worse, we become one of the tyrants that we have historically defended this country against.

US troops have always, and will always, fight for the rights of every American and to uphold the ideals of democracy and due process and advocate for the application and expansion of those principles to citizens of other nations. That means US troops even fight for the rights of criminals like him.

We, above all others, need to lead by example.

 

[Blitz]

Give him a fair trial, followed by a fair appeal, followed by a legal hangin'....

Seriously, everyone has the right to fair trial and legal representation. But too often we are to lenient with penalties.

 

[2Tours N Iraq`]

In fear of starting a long drawn out debate I would like to say that the moment you are convicted of a crime you lose your rights. I don't see the verdict ever getting reversed, no matter how many appeals this indivudual submits. However I do not condone blanket parties or any other form of abuse, in order to maintain good order and discipline.

Personally, I feel that he should be put to death by firing squad. In my opinion this is a humane way of execution as the seven member firing squad is issued pre-loaded bolt-action rifles with one of those rifles containing a blank round (automatic weapons discharge the spent shell casing and therefore can not be used as explained later). This serves to preserve the mental health of the firing squad members so that each man may think they weren't the one who fired the killing shot. Since bolt-action rifles only discharge the case when the bolt is manually opened (which does NOT take place by the firing squad members) the uncertainty in the firing squad members' minds remains. Likewise, he killed many of his fellow soldiers by shooting them in the back (which in my opinion is flat out cowardace) and therefore he should face the same death which he so leisurely issued to those who trusted him. No matter which form of execution he faces, those moments right before the end comes are probably the most terrifying and frightening he will ever face. It is definatly fitting that he feel the same way right beofe he dies as so many of his peers did in the moments before he killed them.

As a side note, I had moved out of Camp Pennsylvania (where the incident took place) only a few days prior to this attack. My family's fear that I may have been one of the soldiers killed or injured in that attack was unbearable. It wasn't until 2 weeks after the incident when they received a letter from me stating that I was fine and not at Camp Pennsylvania since before the attack did that fear subside. Also, the challenges that I faced as a combat leader were enormous. The thought that one of my own men could be capable of turning against me and my fellow soldiers was not even considered nor should it have to be.

For his protection (and to ponder the consequences of his actions) he should be placed in solitary confinement until the time of his execution. I do not hide behind my Christianity to justify any actions (good or bad) that I may have done and so I do not feel that he should be granted that priviledge as it could lead to him being viewed as a martyr. He is not one. He is a terrorist, murderer, and a coward and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[diverbrian]

No, that's not quite right.......shooting them in the back was how they forced them out of the trenches. Considering the chances for survival could you blame them?

There's a good book from a Canadian author (Harrison IIRC) called "Generals Die in Bed". It may not relate to the behavior of modern armies but it's a good read.

R..

In combat situations, officers have been known to shoot their men if they run or disobey orders. This is not often talked about, nor should it be. I don't believe that it happens often, but the few times that it does it is likely written up as a combat casualty. It is one way that some armies enforce discipline, when there isn't time for Non Judical Punishment (we called it Captain's Mast) because of the actual heat of combat.

This was most certainly NOT the case here. The individual will get what is coming to him, but as many have said.... I don't care if it is a murdering child molester (which I actually consider a lower form of life than this), they should get humane treatment before their execution if for no other reason than to keep us above the creatures that commit these heinous crimes. I would love to boil them alive in oil, but it would make me as sick as the person who violates trust in the manner that we see indicated here. A firing squad is certainly appropriate.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

In fear of starting a long drawn out debate I would like to say that the moment you are convicted of a crime you lose your rights.

There is nothing to debate, it's a matter of constitutional law and 200 plus years of legal precedent. In the interest of protecting others and/or in order to impose punishment when you are convicted you often lose your freedom and certain rights related to that freedom. But by no means do you do lose all of your legal, civil and human rights. He most definitely retains his constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment (regardless of his crime) as well as rights related to appealing his conviction, detention and sentence.

Your view that blanket parties, abuse, etc are not acceptable is reasurring. Given that an American soldier is sworn to uphold and defend the consititution, no other course of action is morally or ethically possible, even for an American citizen who has intentionally killed US troops

 

[diverbrian]

There is nothing to debate, it's a matter of constitutional law and 200 plus years of legal precedent. In the interest of protecting others and/or in order to impose punishment when you are convicted you often lose your freedom and certain rights related to that freedom. But by no means do you do lose all of your legal, civil and human rights. He most definitely retains his constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment (regardless of his crime) as well as rights related to appealing his conviction, detention and sentence.

Your view that blanket parties, abuse, etc are not acceptable is reasurring. Given that an American soldier is sworn to uphold and defend the consititution, no other course of action is morally or ethically possible, even for an American citizen who has intentionally killed US troops

Well said... I believe that the bill of rights also addresses treatment of people when we have them imprisoned!

Keep in mind, though, that we sign away some of our consititional rights when we join the military. For instance, you can be imprisoned for exercising your freedom of speech if you don't happen to like the orders that you are given and openly say so. Double jeopardy.... the military has been known to try and convict for crimes in which a civilian court has already acquitted someone. My personal favorite was DUI. After you do the time in a civilan jail, then the military gets to find things like "behavior unbecoming..." or "unauthorized abscence" (after all none of your superiors told you that could be in jail instead of at morning muster). I loved it in Norfolk, where if the Shore Patrol caught you driving drunk on base, they would invite in the Virginia State Police to make the arrest so that it would affect the points on your driver's license.

 

[triton94949]

... He is a terrorist, murderer, and a coward and should be dealt with accordingly.

Actually, those are appellations applicable to civilians, which he is not.

He is a traitor. And that is a lot worse, in my view.

 

[H2Andy]

There is nothing to debate, it's a matter of constitutional law and 200 plus years of legal precedent.

well... it's a matter of military law, which is different from civilian (constitutional) law
in many respects.

a soldier has a duty to obey the orders of a superior even if such orders will likely result in immediate harm or death.

a civilian does not.

a soldier has the duty not to abandon his post and/or unit in combat or in
peacetime (desertion) even if staying in place means immediate harm or death.

a civilian does not.

and so on.

different rights, different duties.

i agree with you, 100%, that he is entitled to the full protection of military law
before, during, and after his trial. but he is subject to military law... so...
different animal

triton, i don't know if you are speaking figuratively (he certainly is a traitor in
the full sense of the word), but literally, he is not a "traitor" as that term is
defined by the Army. he was not charged with "treason" (which is aiding the
enemy) but rather with two counts of premeditated murder and three counts of
attempted murder.

 

[triton94949]

...triton, i don't know if you are speaking figuratively (he certainly is a traitor in
the full sense of the word), but literally, he is not a "traitor" as that term is
defined by the Army. he was not charged with "treason" (which is aiding the
enemy) but rather with two counts of premeditated murder and three counts of
attempted murder.

Andy I am surprised the military prosecutors did not also throw in the treason charge as well, since that is what fragging your own guys in a war zone basically amounts to. Fragging one soldier or officer I could see as personal. Fragging several clearly looks to be treason to me.

But you are technically right, that he was not charged with treason. And therefore he is indeed a convicted multiple murderer rather than a convicted traitor.

 

[Squalus]

Treason holds less of a penalty when it comes to the death penalty.

He did recieve his constitutional rights, the right to a fare and just trial by his peers. The time from the incident till the time that he recieved the verdict was just, plenty of time to get all his defense in preparation. There is nothing more that leaves a bad taste in my mouth than a coward that is willing to kill his teammates when they are the most vulnerable, let alone shoot them in the back.

Fragging was a term used in Vietnam alot, they used to frag leaders or soldiers that did them wrong or were dangerous to the team. The term's definition was simple they waited till the individual was preoccupied such as in the latrine and roll a framentation grenade in there whilest they were doing the deed.

Military Justice differs from civilian justice in many ways, to long to explain the differences. Here is one for you though, a normal DUI for let's say a civic leader would just be a fine. In the military (Army) if an NCO; Non Comissioned Officer recieves a DUI then they are released from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge.