Nine children among 16 dead after US serviceman attacks villagers

[jmm99]

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

[carl]

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.

[Stan]

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.

[omarali50]

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

[jmm99]

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

[carl]

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.

[Stan]

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.

Regards

Mike

Mike,
Here's the deal:
As an NCO and soldier, there is not enough evidence. What he did is clear and I doubt much more will come from it. But, why was he let out of his cage with a weapon at that hour alone. More heads to fry than just his IMO.

As a father, there is little stopping me from building the gallows myself.

This from Ken is word-for-word what I would see happening:

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...

PS. Don't waste a perfectly good .45 round on that Delta Hotel

Regards, Stan

[Ken White]

US Courts Martial can have Non Commissioned Officers, enlisted folks, on the panel -- or military jury as it now seems to be called -- at the choice of the accused. They very rarely have any on the advice of Counsel. When they do appear, many are usually challenged off peremptorily or for cause. It should now be obvious to all why this is so...

Unbending? Beady eyed? Lacking in good old human compassion? Implacably vicious? Who, us?

[Stan]

Unbending? Beady eyed? Lacking in good old human compassion? Implacably vicious? Who, us?

How about bald with a shi...ty attitude
He'd better hope I'm not selected !

[carl]

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.

[omarali50]

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.

[Culpeper]

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.

[Ken White]

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...

[tequila]

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.