Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 156

Thread: Nine children among 16 dead after US serviceman attacks villagers

  1. #21
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I doubt there is any way to reconcile Afghan perceptions of Justice and US perceptions of Justice on this one. Certainly not within the framework of a western legal system.

    This has a global and long-term impact on US influence, far beyond the context of the facts and rumors of this tragic event.

    There is no way to "un-ring" this bell.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Diverse viewpoints

    From AP: Afghan officials attacked at US killing spree site (by MIRWAIS KHAN, Mar. 13, 2012 6:35 AM ET):

    BALANDI, Afghanistan (AP) — Taliban militants opened fire Tuesday on an Afghan government delegation visiting villages in southern Afghanistan where a U.S. soldier is suspected of killing 16 civilians.

    The gunfire killed an Afghan soldier who was providing security for the delegation in Balandi village, said Gen. Abdul Razaq, the police chief for Kandahar province where the visit took place. Another Afghan soldier and a military prosecutor were wounded, he said.

    The delegation, which included two of President Hamid Karzai's brothers and other senior officials, was in a mosque for a memorial service for those killed in Sunday's shooting when the gunfire erupted. ... (diverse viewpoints in story).
    Regards

    Mike

  3. #23
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I doubt there is any way to reconcile Afghan perceptions of Justice and US perceptions of Justice on this one. Certainly not within the framework of a western legal system.
    Does counterinsurgency 2.0 address incommensurability in any way?
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  4. #24
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    Please clarify: are you saying that S.Sgt. X should be taken out and hanged right now - if so, why bother with hanging; a .45 hardball in the nape of the neck would be far more efficient and effective ?

    Or, would you bother with the intermediate niceties of a GCM - an inconvenience accorded the deserter Slovik and the 95 murderers/rapists ?

    Let me make it perfectly f**king clear: I carry no brief against the death penalty. I carry no brief for complicated appellate review. I don't even carry a brief for GCMs. They just happen to be what we do.

    Mike Hoare's summary system would be fine with me, especially the part where the decider of the sentence personally has to execute the sentence. I doubt whether Hoare's system would be acceptable to many of you, especially if you were the accused and I were the decider.

    Regards

    Mike
    Mike: The outlook you object to is an important one. It reflects the lack of confidence of many in the US that justice will be done and even if it is, it will take years and tides of money. If that is what some of us think, imagine what the Afghans think. I understand that the rule of law is important and that we must follow the rules we set, but in 1944 the American military could execute murderers and now we can't. That frustrates people.
    Last edited by carl; 03-13-2012 at 06:39 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #25
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Mike: The outlook you object to is an important one. It reflects the lack of confidence of many in the US that justice will be done and even if it is, it will take years and tides of money.
    Indeed, Carl. He will simply be declared sick in the head and sent home. He will join the jobless and useless. The remainder of US will bear his bills and misgivings for a long time. He will be forgiven for being a piece of Sierra while the remainder of us suck it up and continue to be hunted and shot at. He will wallow in misery when his cable is out, while we cover for his pathetic lack of intestinal fortitude.

    In the unlikely event he is found guilty and has a conscience, we will continue to feed him and pay for his cable TV in prison.

    He signed an oath and he blew it.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Red face

    I hate to say it but I cannot help it: "aint gonna happen" seems to be everyone's opinion. How then to cut the Gordian Knot? (not so much about this POS sergeant but about "the mission")

    For another pessimistic assessment (I dont necessarily agree with the details, but strategic paralysis does appear to be general).

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80464630/2...ategic-Anarchy

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Carl:

    You assume too much as to what I personally do or do not object to. Most all of my posts are "legal opinions" based on what the "law" is - in short, subject to constraints external to myself. My wife says that I am all gray on the outside; but, all black and white on the inside. She is correct.

    A very brief personal JMM (John Michael McCarthy) insider. I personally don't give a damn for the "Rule of Law", for "S.Sgt.X", and for all the rest of the gold braid that will go along with this case. I'd be more happy to have lived in a hunter-gatherer society where I and other members of the "Clan" would make the "law". Had I lived in that society, I probably would not be living at 69, but that is another story. BLUF (whatever one thinks of it) we in our complex society do have external constraints, don't we.

    I'm aware of all viewpoints on the death penalty. I also see Stan as saying or almost saying: based on the facts Stan now knows, the man is guilty and should be executed. If I am wrong, Stan, correct me. Stan does not say he would perform the execution; and I don't want to put those words in Stan's mouth. But, if he said that explicitly and spelled it out in bold caps - fine, that's OK, because that's his black & white decision, and Stan is being honest.

    The facts I know now about "S.Sgt. X" are not sufficient - I simply do not have enough data to analyze and reach a decison to act by my putting a .45 to the back of his head and pulling the trigger. That is not being "gray"; I simply do not know enough data to make a black & white personal decision. That is my present position - and that is written in black & white.

    As another personal sidebar: when I look at "ROE situations", I ask (1) what would I decide, as the shooter, if I had no constraints (externals) subject only to my own restraints (internals); and (2) what should I decide, as the shooter, under the constraints (externals) then existing as I understand them. In fact, I use my imagination (as best I can) to try to look at those situations from the standpoints of all who were involved.

    BTW: If you want to get into the political arena re: the death penalty (as some comments in this post and in this thread certainly are), then you should get active with people such as Brooks Patterson. Brooks is too controversial for state-wide office, but his county has given him multiple terms (more before that as prosecutor). He finds the death penalty acceptable (so do I). From WXYZ, Death penalty case involving 2001 fatal shooting sparks debate in Metro Detroit:

    Posted: 07/12/2010

    DETROIT (WXYZ) - It was years before federal investigators finally determined seven men were responsible for the fatal shooting in Dearborn of an armored truck guard in December of 2001. Now, one of the crew, 36-year-old Timmothy Dennis O’Reilly is on trial in Federal District Court for the murder of 30-year-old Norman Stephens of Detroit, the father of six children who was ambushed while servicing an ATM at the Dearborn Federal Credit Union.
    ...
    But the possibility of a death sentence upon conviction has re-opened the debate on the ultimate punishment that hasn’t been allowed in Michigan since 1847. Federal law still allows the death penalty in capitol cases.

    “I’d like to know more about the case, but I don’t know,” said Megan Shafto. “I’m Catholic, and we don’t approve of the death penalty, but sometimes, maybe,” Megan added.

    “An eye for an eye, definitely, so I'm for it, absolutely” said Jay Teshka.

    “I’m against the death penalty, because there’s no turning back once you’ve executed an innocent man,” said Howard Maxwell.

    Former prosecutor and Oakland Co. Executive L. Brooks Patterson is a longtime death penalty advocate.

    “With the use of DNA evidence, the system is closer to fool-proof, ”Patterson said. “But can mistakes be made, of course.”
    In the event, the accused was found guilty on all charges; but Jury Unable to Reach a Unanimous Decision for Detroit Man Convicted on Charges of Murder and Bank Robbery:

    U.S. Attorney’s Office
    Eastern District of Michigan
    August 25, 2010

    A federal jury in Detroit today was unable to reach a unanimous decision during the penalty phase in the case of U.S. v. Timothy Dennis O’Reilly, 37, a Detroit resident originally from Camarillo, California. O’Reilly had been convicted on charges including murder, bank robbery, and conspiracy relating to armored car robberies in Dearborn and Detroit, Michigan, United States Attorney Barbara L. McQuade announced.
    ...
    The jury deliberated for seven hours before announcing that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. As a result, the court must impose a sentence of life in prison without possibility of release. The penalty phase of the trial began on August 9, 2010. O’Reilly was convicted on August 3, 2010, which concluded the 11-day trial before United States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. ...
    So, people will reach different conclusions about the death penalty - which I am not arguing here.

    Nor am I arguing that the "Rule of Law" should be followed. John Allen has already stated that U.S. law will be followed (CNN interview). He could, of course, be overruled by President Obama, who could hand "S.Sgt. X" over to the Afghanis. Astan has the worst and most corrupt legal system in the World. Not withstanding, their cry of "Homang come down" could be answered with "Holman come down". But, lest we digress, I'm not presently arguing that either.

    The basic proposition is very simple: Based on the evidence you have before you now, is there enough evidence for you to decide whether you would personally execute "S.Sgt. X" now ?

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 03-13-2012 at 11:32 PM.

  8. #28
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Mike:

    I am not talking about the death penalty at all. You seemed to take very strong exception to the opinion you appeared to feel Culpepper expressed in your reply to him. I am not arguing for or against either one of you. What I am saying is many people in the US are extremely frustrated with the legal system as it now exists and has developed over the years. That is important. I realize that all the various procedures developed for specific reasons but the cumulative effect is that us laymen see something we don't have a lot of confidence in.

    The US could execute military murderers in WWII, we could take decisive action quickly. Now it would be a miracle if the thing from Ft. Hood or the thing in Afghanistan were to receive the death penalty or for the cases to be resolved in less than several years. That dichotomy (wow, that is the first time I got to use that word in a sentence, if I used it right) frustrates us, at least it does me. We have so wrapped ourselves in procedure we can't seem to get anything done, even things so obvious as the Ft. Hood murders and perhaps this case.
    Last edited by carl; 03-14-2012 at 01:18 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  9. #29
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    He will simply be declared sick in the head and sent home.
    It has already started Stan. I was listening to Hannity on the radio and in the intro he said there might be extenuating circumstances. I couldn't listen to the rest. The tone just got to me.

    Now maybe there will be something, a brain tumor that caused genuine hallucinations and voices etc. But I doubt it. What I expect to see is what I remember after the My Lai killings became public knowledge, people defending the killings and even calling Calley and the rest "heroes." I had hoped I would never see my countrymen behaving like that again because it sickened me.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Its part of the system. A segment of politicians has latched on to faux patriotism as their trademark and its most exaggerated version is to make sure that "one of our own" is always ten times better than any damn foreigner. It has nothing to do with the actual event. Fox news will soon have someone whose job is to defend him, not so much to defend him (they couldnt care less) but to see if they can get some idiot on MSNBC to go overboard in response.
    Which is another reason foreign adventures are not easy to manage these days. A very strong leader could probably do more to make sure such kooks are kept in their place, but Obama is not that leader, so expect no miracles, especially not in an election year.

  11. #31
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default What?

    First, I wasn't advocating taking this guy out and having him shot on the spot.

    Anyway, whats makes a murderer with special circumstances in uniform any different than any one of those convicted people with special circumstances on Texas Death Row? Except maybe the latter are sure to be executed for far less. I do believe the UCMJ does have the authority to execute this soldier if the UCMJ sees fit to do so. Also, one does not have to personally carry out an execution to make the sentence bona fide. For crying out loud, even gang bangers of the 1980s didn't commit this sort of genocide in their South Central L.A. neighborhoods at the height of their little wars not to mention their casualty rates were much higher per capita than Iran and Afghanistan combined. So, I'm not going to buy this guy was pushed too hard by the military. Yes, WWII was a different time that called for different measures but is it too much to ask that it be considered that if one soldier, for the act of mass murder, loses a war for a nation be shot by a firing squad if tried and convicted by court martial? After all, Eisenhower executed Slovik to set an example. Soldiers have been executed to end a war as well. Like the Boar War. So, there is nothing phenomenal about considering the death sentence during the court martial of this soldier.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  12. #32
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm with Stan

    If the allegations prove to be correct, turn him over to the Afghans. He blew any right he had to UCMJ protection. To paraphrase Kipling, let the women go after him with flashing knives...

    No sense crying about it. It's done. It has nothing to do with COIN foolishness, with the wrong war in the wrong place, with combat stress, with training or even with METT-TC. It's a pure people thing so I'm also with jmm99. There but for the grace of Harold go I. Never know what will cause a flip out or how it will progress.

    I'm also with Bob's World. This will haunt the US for years in strange and unforeseen ways, more so than, say, attacking Iraq. That was national, this is personal. Almost no one remembers Truong Long, almost everyone recalls My Lai. Levels matter...

  13. #33
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Joshua Foust makes an excellent point. This is probably not a game-changer from an Afghan perspective, since most Afghans make little distinction between a deliberate American massacre and a slaughter by error at this point in the war. Sure, the Taliban will try and make hay, but they do anytime Afghan civilians die at NATO hands, which happens often enough to not make the news anymore.

    Where it may be a game changer, the way My Lai was, is in the American domestic sphere. The urge to cut and run seems to be only accelerating at this point.

    Should we turn him over to the Afghans? Should we have left Ray Davis and his incompetent QRF to the Pakistanis? The pilots who killed nine Afghan children last year? The precedent set would be disastrous.
    Last edited by tequila; 03-14-2012 at 02:21 AM.

  14. #34
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    Should we turn him over to the Afghans? Should we have left Ray Davis and his incompetent QRF to the Pakistanis? The pilots who killed nine Afghan children last year? The precedent set would be disastrous.
    Mostly for the sake of argument, one incident was partly self defense, one was a stupid mistake (part of a continuing pattern), but this last appears to be plain old criminal murder. It might be good to set a precedent that if you commit criminal murder, the locals handle you.

    If a soldier did the same thing in Japan, walked off the base, murdered 16 Japanese, then walked back onto the base and turned himself in; who would handle the case? I don't know which is why I ask.

    Do you know what the outcome of the investigation into the killing of those children by the helos last year was?
    Last edited by carl; 03-14-2012 at 02:50 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  15. #35
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Kiwi Fruit and Pomengranates

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    ...This is probably not a game-changer from an Afghan perspective, since most Afghans make little distinction between a deliberate American massacre and a slaughter by error at this point in the war.
    I agree but not due to the politically tinged reasons reason you or Foust state, rather simply because most Afghans are used to death, period.
    Where it may be a game changer, the way My Lai was, is in the American domestic sphere. The urge to cut and run seems to be only accelerating at this point.
    Funny, having been around at the time I do not recall My Lai as being a US 'game changer' -- other than with the pseudo intelligentsia who latched on to it as yet another reason to not be in Viet Nam. The majority of Americans didn't turn a hair and no American politician got upset unless it was to his or his party's political advantage to do so. Some things don't change much...
    Should we turn him over to the Afghans? Should we have left Ray Davis and his incompetent QRF to the Pakistanis? The pilots who killed nine Afghan children last year? The precedent set would be disastrous.
    Carl's already correctly called you on this. Military or professional incompetence is one thing, military misadventure another and murder is murder. Very different issues.

    (Though I could make a case for being almost as unforgiving of incompetence... )

    In fairness, while the contention of Carl and I is, I believe, correct (and noting that we both are saying IF it's proven to be as it seems -- right now too early to tell, really...), your point on precedent is well founded. It would indeed be misunderstood and seized upon -- but I think that goes with the territory. Start messing around in places and with people you do not understand and bad things are a given. So, yes a bad precedent but perhaps one that might encourage less stooging about in other nations...

  16. #36
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    While it might be emotionally pleasing to turn this guy over to Afghan justice, which would almost certainly be swifter and more decisive than US justice, it would set a terrifying precedent. We have come under fire for turning Afghans over to Afghan justice at times when it was believed that the accused would not receive due process. How much due process do you think that this guy would get? By turning him over to Afghan justice we are basically saying that he is guilty and that he deserves to be punished. Whatever pretense the Afghan courts throw together for show do not really count for much. Based on the reports coming out from this incident, this guy probably does deserve that. Lord knows that I am not going to be shedding a lot of tears for him. But what about the next one? It is fairly easy to condemn this guy but not every case is this cut and dried. Where do you draw the line?

    In any case, I, and I know that I am in the minority here, would much rather not see this guy get the death penalty. I would much rather see him get life in prison and go to general population in an American prison. If he gets the death penalty he will live out his days in a protected cell by himself. General population would be different or so I am given to understand. He is a child murderer and even prisoners have a moral code. My understanding is that some of the things that happen to child murderers in US prisons would make Torquemada queasy.
    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

    Terry Pratchett

  17. #37
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Mostly for the sake of argument, one incident was partly self defense, one was a stupid mistake (part of a continuing pattern), but this last appears to be plain old criminal murder. It might be good to set a precedent that if you commit criminal murder, the locals handle you.

    If a soldier did the same thing in Japan, walked off the base, murdered 16 Japanese, then walked back onto the base and turned himself in; who would handle the case? I don't know which is why I ask.

    Do you know what the outcome of the investigation into the killing of those children by the helos last year was?
    I agree with you that in reality the helo incident was NOT murder.

    But most Afghans likely disagree with you on that. The point of the Foust link was that these murders and the accidental killing of the children earlier this year are not much different in the view of most Afghans. If the point of handing this guy over is to assuage Afghan rage, you might as well do the same with the helo pilots or the AF guys who burned the Qurans.

    The precedent that would set means it will not happen.

    We have a SOFA with Japan which governs what happens with U.S. military personnel charged with crimes against Japanese civilians. We don't have on with Afghanistan - more to the point, Japan has a functioning justice system, which Afghanistan does not.

  18. #38
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Tequila:

    If it were to be done, the point of handing him over to the locals would not be to assuage Afghan rage, the points would be condign (another first in word use, two in one night!) punishment for the individual and the dissuasive effect it would have on anybody else who felt like having fun with the locals, the Black Heart and Kill Team types. A well functioning local justice system is not needed to accomplish those two purposes.

    I can see how Afghans no longer distinguish between murder and other mistaken or not so mistaken killings. If it isn't that helo incident it is another, if not that it is the Marine spec ops unit shooting up the countryside for who knows why, or it is a night raid gone bad faking evidence etc etc etc for years and years. And nothing much happens beyond the standard apology and money paid. This is just another in the string. I think it was Kilcullen who said that each one of these incidents should be treated as a friendly fire incident and handled with the same rigor and seriousness. They aren't. If we had done that or at least made a good try, the Afghans may have been willing to cut us some slack. It is probably too late now though.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  19. #39
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Just a minor point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    While it might be emotionally pleasing to turn this guy over to Afghan justice...Based on the reports coming out from this incident, this guy probably does deserve that...Where do you draw the line?
    I wouldn't turn him over to Afghan justice at at all. I wouldn't turn him over to anyone unless it was well and duly proven that he in fact did what is alleged -- that would take a US Court Martial (which could be convened and completed at KAF in less than a month or so) and then IF he were guilty, give him to the villagers, no Afghan justice involved in the formal sense and no intent to serve as an example to deter others (anyone that apparently nutty wouldn't be deterred...), nor any intent to calm the Afghans -- merely an eye for an eye...

    Yes, that's barbaric. So is war. I'm a barbarian; can't say I really like war but it doesn't bother me. Nor does killing those who deserve it or who are trying to kill me. What was apparently done by someone -- and I have seen others in other places do similar things over the years -- was so wrong as to not deserve any better end. That depth of evil does bother me, barbarian or no and IF what's reported is fairly accurate, then my line was crossed (as occurred with the guys from the 506th in the Black Hearts thing). Most everyone has their own line and most adapt to circumstances.

    Such a quick trial and turn over is not going not going to happen and I know it. I also know that my line isn't everyone's or the system's and that's okay. However, such a turnover if the affair is proven to be as it appears would fit my perhaps overdeveloped, mayhap even perverted, sense of justice.

    Since that isn't going to happen, I agree with your handling and end result.

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default You all who are propounding ...

    that the death penalty should apply to murderers under special circumstances are preaching to the choir of Brooks Patterson and John McCarthy. Of course, it should apply; even though, as Brooks said, despite the system being closer to fool-proof (DNA evidence), mistakes can be made.

    But, if you are one who propounds the death penalty, then you damn well should answer my basic proposition, which is (so I am crystal clear):

    The basic proposition is very simple: Based on the evidence you have before you now, is there enough evidence for you to decide whether you would personally execute "S.Sgt. X" [or murderer of your choice] now ?
    even if you only answer that question to yourself.

    If your bitch is with the criminal law system, then instead of griping, find a non-party group (all groups are partisan) that pushes your agenda. You will find one to suit you because they are spread across the ideological spectrum.

    My personal agenda over the years has been the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation (which accept the death penalty and strict enforcement of existing criminal laws as an added bonus). I really don't see "reform" of the criminal justice system happening; nor do I see the death penalty making much of a difference in general deterrence (obviously it is the ultimate specific deterrent).

    Thus, my goal is enhancing the rights of the "Armed Citizen" in his or her own defense and the defense of others. It is much better to preemp the would be murderer than to punish the actual murderer. I kill him rather than he kill me. In saying that I realize that the average "Armed Citizen" (including me) is not going to stand up against someone well-trained and experienced in CQB. But, at least there is a chance. End my "political" plug.

    Culpepper: If I were the decider personally (no external constraints - think Tony Waller and Arthur Day combined), I would require the informal equivalents of a good AR15-6 report and of a good forensic psychiatric. Then, I would give the guy the opportunity to speak or remain silent. If after that, the "evidence" (note the absence of formal rules) flipped my switch by showing sane commission of the acts, without some other plausible defense, I would find the guy guilty. Then, I'd have to execute him because that's what I've said I'd do. Inject an excellent service record and plausible evidence of diminished capacity driving the acts, for example, and I probably wouldn't reach the death penalty. As I've said, the evidence presently before me is insufficient for me to decide anything.

    Warning - in legal opinion mode (what the present constraints are) for the next five paragraphs. In his Son Thang book (1997), Gary Solis noted that the last military execution was in 1961 (the last Marine was executed in the early 1800s). Of course, Gary was correct when he wrote that - in detail, see Number of military executions in the UCMJ era (2008).

    I think that's still the case - e.g, the Ronald Gray case. SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT: President approves Gray's death sentence (2008) (interesting comment by Gray's roommate at very end). Ronald A. Gray was still alive in Feb 2012 (Wiki and Fayetteville Observer). If I've missed a military execution, please advise.

    So, the UCMJ does provide for the death penalty in premeditated murder cases - not only for the shooter, but for aiders and abetters also. In all death penalty cases, notice of intent to seek the death penalty must be given by the Convening Authority. Your Manual for Courts-Martial has all that stuff.

    Warning - still in legal opinion mode. "S.Sgt. X" has apparently muled up - anyone who has followed Haditha and read about Son Thang knows that is the only smart thing to do. So, we don't know what (if anything) he will say at trial. By that time, he may be catatonic (makes an easy defense - the case can't be tried - been there, once), but not likely. The accused's testimony at trial (without prior statements) can be very outcome determinative - not saying it would be in this case.

    Warning - still in legal opinion mode. We can expect two issues to be raised by the defense: (1) undue command influence (our National Command Authorities, POTUS and SecDef, have probably been talking too much); and (2) contamination of the forensics and "crime scenes" (villagers and Taliban). Not saying they are winners either, but they will be raised.

    I'm not going to get involved in the SOFA discussion - have fun, guys. BTW: Carl's question:

    If a soldier did the same thing in Japan, walked off the base, murdered 16 Japanese, then walked back onto the base and turned himself in; who would handle the case?
    is a good one. I just don't want to talk about that now. So I won't.

    Regards

    Mike

    PS: A "SOFA" with the Astan Gov't was mentioned in a footnote to the USG Brief or Appendix in the Bagram habeas case (either District or Circuit phase) as being contained in "diplomatic notes". I don't know if that "agreement" (a type of executive-executive agreement) has been published. Right now, I'm not going to find out. I didn't think there was a US-Afghanistan agreement on Governance, Economics and Security until Ken White wised me up to the 2005 Strategic Partnership Agreement (still in effect) signed by Pres. Bush and Karzai. That has been published. Warning: Astan is a minefield of "memoranda of understanding" - Take care.

Similar Threads

  1. Pakistani people OK with drone attacks?
    By BayonetBrant in forum South Asia
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 04:18 PM
  2. Attacks in Iraq Down Considerably
    By SWJED in forum Blog Watch
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-23-2006, 10:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •