He's not exempt, it just requires an extra special level of approval. The only real argument would be should the president have to sign off on all executions.
kildy on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I should think this would send the message that being an American soldier does not mean you get to be a fucking monster and get away with it. No one is above the law, even the men who fight to protect it.
AbsoluteZero on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
I'm fine with that cuz as I said the military justice system is much less forgiving than the civilian one.
Even the civilian one a governor can overrule an execution. It's just another level of approval.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited July 2008
I think by not treating this soldier as we would a civilian we'd have set a precedent that 'hey, wanna kill and rape a bunch of people? Come join the military!'
So I have no qualms about him getting the death penalty just as someone who wasn't in the military would.
As to whether we should have a death penalty, that's a whole different topic IMO.
However, Ferals statement made it sound like he values the lives of civilians over those of soldiers.
Yes, I do.
I think that's implicit in signing up for a career path where you are expected to sacrifice your life if necessary. Civilians, in general, have made no such agreement.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
I should think this would send the message that being an American soldier does not mean you get to be a fucking monster and get away with it. No one is above the law, even the men who fight to protect it.
That message was sent for a while with the whole Vietnam torching of towns and recent stuff like Abu Graihb. Now the message is join a mercenary organization because you get to waterboard people!
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
However, Ferals statement made it sound like he values the lives of civilians over those of soldiers.
Yes, I do.
I think that's implicit in signing up for a career path where you are expected to sacrifice your life if necessary. Civilians, in general, have made no such agreement.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
However, Ferals statement made it sound like he values the lives of civilians over those of soldiers.
Yes, I do.
I think that's implicit in signing up for a career path where you are expected to sacrifice your life if necessary. Civilians, in general, have made no such agreement.
You are expected to sacrifice your life as necessary in the course of combat as directed by your country.
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
However, Ferals statement made it sound like he values the lives of civilians over those of soldiers.
I do.
I'm sure there's a shallow reason there somewhere. Your lack of explaining it the first time shows it.
Whatever though, your choice.
I can kind of see where he's coming from. The whole raison d'etre for a soldier in a volunteer military, really, is to put himself in harm's way to defend the (civilian) citizens of his country. So, following that logic, if you had to choose (for whatever reason) between losing the life of a soldier or losing the life of a civilian, you pick the soldier, which (I guess) can mean valuing the lives of civilians more. It's just that somewhere along that logical chain the connotations of the words change even if the meanings don't really. edit: he's not saying soldiers are lesser human beings, it just looks that way to you because it's sort of poorly worded.
Daedalus on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
So.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Members of the military are subject to UCMJ at all times, on and off duty, and it is the right for the military to file charges even if they have already been through the civilian side.
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
4 months in jail then parole for murdering dozens of men, women, and children isn't what I'd call 'getting punished' or 'justice' but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
moniker on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Any crime you commit while in the service will be punished by UCMJ, not just civilian courts.
Not all offenses will go to civilian courts if, say, you commit a crime on post. However, if you fuck up in a civilian jurisdiciton, you get double-fucked.
I understand the reasoning that once you sign onto the military, you've signed away a large piece of your life and therefore it would seem less of an issue to take your life when you do something really bad. It isn't because you are worth less as a person, necessarily, it just means that you've voluntarily put your life on the line. You signed onto a system that is both explicitly and implicitly a much higher expectation of you than is normal civilian life.
On the other hand, the military, as opposed to free civilian society, is much more of an operational system of people. It is not individualistic. And hence any failure, any crime, is more apt to be viewed as a failure and crime of a large part of the system and not just the individual. Which is part of the reason military executions are rare. The fact that he was on active duty means that not only is he responsible for his actions, but to some extent his commanding officer and the entire Executive Branch is responsible. And therefore it makes less sense to execute the individual.
Which is also why this seems to many people to "send a message." Bush is executing a member of his own staff here. Well, in theory, anyway.
Yar on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
4 months in jail then parole for murdering dozens of men, women, and children isn't what I'd call 'getting punished' or 'justice' but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
Oh, fuck you.
What?
When they made the choice to enlist they also made a choice (swore an oath no less) to uphold things like the Constitution. They also agreed to be subject to the UCMJ, which if it were a person would carry its cash in a "Bad Motherfucker" wallet compared to Professor Snugglesworth civilian rights and laws.
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Members of the military are subject to UCMJ at all times, on and off duty, and it is the right for the military to file charges even if they have already been through the civilian side.
But the civilian court's judgment should stand. Essentially it's an odd form of double jeopardy. He's being tried for the same crime twice, he plead guilty to the first one for a reduced sentence (life), and was tried again for the same murders and received a harsher sentence(death).
Having two justice systems completely fucks with the justice system in general.
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
4 months in jail then parole for murdering dozens of men, women, and children isn't what I'd call 'getting punished' or 'justice' but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Sounds like the civilian court system.
No, not really.
moniker on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
Oh, fuck you.
What?
When they made the choice to enlist they also made a choice (swore an oath no less) to uphold things like the Constitution. They also agreed to be subject to the UCMJ, which if it were a person would carry its cash in a "Bad Motherfucker" wallet.
And so our lives are of LESS value.
Like I said, I'm really not seeing what you say here. Because we may die someday doesn't mean it's LESS of a tragedy. Go ask the parents of an 18 year old marine if it's cool their kid died because he signed a contract.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Members of the military are subject to UCMJ at all times, on and off duty, and it is the right for the military to file charges even if they have already been through the civilian side.
But the civilian court's judgment should stand. Essentially it's an odd form of double jeopardy. He's being tried for the same crime twice, he plead guilty to the first one for a reduced sentence (life), and was tried again for the same murders and received a harsher sentence(death).
Having two justice systems completely fucks with the justice system in general.
Being a solider, you also forfeit some freedoms.
This is one of them. It's that whole "holding to a higher standard" thing.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
Oh, fuck you.
What?
When they made the choice to enlist they also made a choice (swore an oath no less) to uphold things like the Constitution. They also agreed to be subject to the UCMJ, which if it were a person would carry its cash in a "Bad Motherfucker" wallet.
And so our lives are of LESS value.
Like I said, I'm really not seeing what you say here. Because we may die someday doesn't mean it's LESS of a tragedy. Go ask the parents of an 18 year old marine if it's cool their kid died because he signed a contract.
In the event of imminent death who should be targeted, a soldier or a civilian?
It sounds like kildy misinterpreted jungle's response. Kildy, you said you have to really muff it up to face punishment. Jungle said you get your ass raped for simply lying to somebody as a counter to that statement, not an excuse for not executing soldiers.
Now let's end the stupid and continue the discussion.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Members of the military are subject to UCMJ at all times, on and off duty, and it is the right for the military to file charges even if they have already been through the civilian side.
But the civilian court's judgment should stand. Essentially it's an odd form of double jeopardy. He's being tried for the same crime twice, he plead guilty to the first one for a reduced sentence (life), and was tried again for the same murders and received a harsher sentence(death).
Having two justice systems completely fucks with the justice system in general.
That's a problem members of the military have to face. An easy way to remedy that situation is to not fuck up like this. Soldiers can be put to death for many things a civilian can't, rape being one of them.
I'm of the opinion that the military justice system is horrible, however, and should not be involved in anything.
Mostly due to the fact that it runs itself as a contained unit, and can thus rig cases if it wants a specific result (prosecutor getting on your nerves? Redeploy him in the middle of the case!)
It's far easier to just use the federal courts for everything and stop pretending there's a second law book, just put the UCMJ in the real law books.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
Oh, fuck you.
This is why I didn't want to talk to you about it in the first place. You clearly had a bone to pick and you're projecting some personal issue onto me.
BTW, I agree strongly with Yar's above post.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm still waiting for Feral and a little clarification on why it's better to execute a soldier than a civilian, or less morally reprehensible, or whatever.
Because when you give someone the authority and power to use lethal force in the application of their job, that also comes with a higher degree of responsibility to use that power responsibly.
This case doesn't apply that though because in this case his crimes were not in the course of his job but were in situations where a civillian could have committed the same acts. I'd support the death penalty for either a civillian or soldier given the nature of the crimes, provided it can be proven to an extent beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But in my mind this does make execution an acceptable punishment for war crimes , etc, given the same burden of proof. And by war crimes I don't mean "A guy was driving through a check point and didn't stop so they shot him", I mean rapes/murders of clear non-combatants, ethnic cleansing, etc.
I guess those same offenses would also morally justify the death penalty if done by a civillian, so whatever. I just don't think that simply being in the military exempts you from personal responsibility or falling under the rule of law.
I'd agree if the military's criteria in terms of selecting people to put in those positions of authority to use lethal force was as calculated as other organizations that put people in similar positions was universal. Actually no, scratch that; I'd agree if their criteria was even more selective, but that won't win wars now will it?
Instead you have recruiters hovering around poor areas, filling a quota only to raise them to the highest of high moral ground. To be able to kill another human being, or several and turn it off when you go back home.
I'm of the opinion that the military justice system is horrible, however, and should not be involved in anything.
Mostly due to the fact that it runs itself as a contained unit, and can thus rig cases if it wants a specific result (prosecutor getting on your nerves? Redeploy him in the middle of the case!)
It's far easier to just use the federal courts for everything and stop pretending there's a second law book, just put the UCMJ in the real law books.
And then when a soldier commits some crime outside of any juristiction, we should do what, exactly? It's there for a reason.
I'm of the opinion that the military justice system is horrible, however, and should not be involved in anything.
Mostly due to the fact that it runs itself as a contained unit, and can thus rig cases if it wants a specific result (prosecutor getting on your nerves? Redeploy him in the middle of the case!)
It's far easier to just use the federal courts for everything and stop pretending there's a second law book, just put the UCMJ in the real law books.
And then when a soldier commits some crime outside of any juristiction, we should do what, exactly? It's there for a reason.
If it's a US crime, haul them in front of a federal judge.
If it's a foreign crime, haul them in front of their legal system.
Same thing that happens when a US citizen commits some crime outside of any jurisdiction.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. They agree to possibly forfeit their lives for you against other forces and for THAT you decide we're lesser people than you?
Oh, fuck you.
What?
When they made the choice to enlist they also made a choice (swore an oath no less) to uphold things like the Constitution. They also agreed to be subject to the UCMJ, which if it were a person would carry its cash in a "Bad Motherfucker" wallet.
And so our lives are of LESS value.
Like I said, I'm really not seeing what you say here. Because we may die someday doesn't mean it's LESS of a tragedy. Go ask the parents of an 18 year old marine if it's cool their kid died because he signed a contract.
Nobody said your lives were of less value. Not anybody in this thread. What was said, essentially, was that the death of a soldier comes as less of a shock. It's a job hazard. Yeah, it's not good. Premature death is not going to be a good thing. But that's the life you signed up for, and it's an outcome that's planned on.
So, when a soldier gets the death sentence, it's less of a shock to those of us who are against the death penalty because, without the crimes he committed, he'd be getting paid to be shot at otherwise right now.
The military is self-governing. They have their own laws as well as the laws of the U.S. and yes, it holds members to a higher standard than civilians.
jungle, the only person here who said anything even resembling "soldiers' lives are worth less" is you.
Actually, I said it.
Construct any arbitrarily convoluted thought experiment where I am forced to choose between the life of a civilian and the life of a soldier, where all other factors are equal, I will choose the civilian every single time.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
He also committed 2 murders.
Two murders, attempted murder, and three rapes. I read it the same way, missing the part before the comma at first.
It depends on the context. Whenever it becomes political the people in question get off far easier than in any other situation. That is somewhat understandable given the fog of war, but in many cases the people involved don't receive any punishment when all's said and done. My Lai, Haditha, and Abu Ghraib being the obvious examples.
Even the civilian one a governor can overrule an execution. It's just another level of approval.
So I have no qualms about him getting the death penalty just as someone who wasn't in the military would.
As to whether we should have a death penalty, that's a whole different topic IMO.
Yes, I do.
I think that's implicit in signing up for a career path where you are expected to sacrifice your life if necessary. Civilians, in general, have made no such agreement.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
All I need to say is the Military is one place where a promotion doesn't mean they aren't getting punished.
That message was sent for a while with the whole Vietnam torching of towns and recent stuff like Abu Graihb. Now the message is join a mercenary organization because you get to waterboard people!
I'm sure there's a shallow reason there somewhere. Your lack of explaining it the first time shows it.
Whatever though, your choice.
I edited my post to elaborate.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You are expected to sacrifice your life as necessary in the course of combat as directed by your country.
If you commit an offense that would result in life in prison as a civilian, you should get life in prison as a solider. Simple. No alterations to the criminal code, no separate punishment scale, nothing.
In this case, I'm kind of confused why he was charged by a court martial, since he plead guilty in a civilian court and the murders were committed off base.
Edit; apparently reading comprehension.
I can kind of see where he's coming from. The whole raison d'etre for a soldier in a volunteer military, really, is to put himself in harm's way to defend the (civilian) citizens of his country. So, following that logic, if you had to choose (for whatever reason) between losing the life of a soldier or losing the life of a civilian, you pick the soldier, which (I guess) can mean valuing the lives of civilians more. It's just that somewhere along that logical chain the connotations of the words change even if the meanings don't really. edit: he's not saying soldiers are lesser human beings, it just looks that way to you because it's sort of poorly worded.
Because someone has decided to make a choice where they may die for you and they don't even know you, they're less of a person.
Makes sense.
Oh, fuck you.
Members of the military are subject to UCMJ at all times, on and off duty, and it is the right for the military to file charges even if they have already been through the civilian side.
4 months in jail then parole for murdering dozens of men, women, and children isn't what I'd call 'getting punished' or 'justice' but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Any crime you commit while in the service will be punished by UCMJ, not just civilian courts.
Not all offenses will go to civilian courts if, say, you commit a crime on post. However, if you fuck up in a civilian jurisdiciton, you get double-fucked.
On the other hand, the military, as opposed to free civilian society, is much more of an operational system of people. It is not individualistic. And hence any failure, any crime, is more apt to be viewed as a failure and crime of a large part of the system and not just the individual. Which is part of the reason military executions are rare. The fact that he was on active duty means that not only is he responsible for his actions, but to some extent his commanding officer and the entire Executive Branch is responsible. And therefore it makes less sense to execute the individual.
Which is also why this seems to many people to "send a message." Bush is executing a member of his own staff here. Well, in theory, anyway.
Sounds like the civilian court system.
What?
When they made the choice to enlist they also made a choice (swore an oath no less) to uphold things like the Constitution. They also agreed to be subject to the UCMJ, which if it were a person would carry its cash in a "Bad Motherfucker" wallet compared to Professor Snugglesworth civilian rights and laws.
But the civilian court's judgment should stand. Essentially it's an odd form of double jeopardy. He's being tried for the same crime twice, he plead guilty to the first one for a reduced sentence (life), and was tried again for the same murders and received a harsher sentence(death).
Having two justice systems completely fucks with the justice system in general.
No, not really.
And so our lives are of LESS value.
Like I said, I'm really not seeing what you say here. Because we may die someday doesn't mean it's LESS of a tragedy. Go ask the parents of an 18 year old marine if it's cool their kid died because he signed a contract.
Being a solider, you also forfeit some freedoms.
This is one of them. It's that whole "holding to a higher standard" thing.
In the event of imminent death who should be targeted, a soldier or a civilian?
That's a problem members of the military have to face. An easy way to remedy that situation is to not fuck up like this. Soldiers can be put to death for many things a civilian can't, rape being one of them.
Mostly due to the fact that it runs itself as a contained unit, and can thus rig cases if it wants a specific result (prosecutor getting on your nerves? Redeploy him in the middle of the case!)
It's far easier to just use the federal courts for everything and stop pretending there's a second law book, just put the UCMJ in the real law books.
This is why I didn't want to talk to you about it in the first place. You clearly had a bone to pick and you're projecting some personal issue onto me.
BTW, I agree strongly with Yar's above post.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd agree if the military's criteria in terms of selecting people to put in those positions of authority to use lethal force was as calculated as other organizations that put people in similar positions was universal. Actually no, scratch that; I'd agree if their criteria was even more selective, but that won't win wars now will it?
Instead you have recruiters hovering around poor areas, filling a quota only to raise them to the highest of high moral ground. To be able to kill another human being, or several and turn it off when you go back home.
Sorry, no.
And then when a soldier commits some crime outside of any juristiction, we should do what, exactly? It's there for a reason.
If it's a US crime, haul them in front of a federal judge.
If it's a foreign crime, haul them in front of their legal system.
Same thing that happens when a US citizen commits some crime outside of any jurisdiction.
Nobody said your lives were of less value. Not anybody in this thread. What was said, essentially, was that the death of a soldier comes as less of a shock. It's a job hazard. Yeah, it's not good. Premature death is not going to be a good thing. But that's the life you signed up for, and it's an outcome that's planned on.
So, when a soldier gets the death sentence, it's less of a shock to those of us who are against the death penalty because, without the crimes he committed, he'd be getting paid to be shot at otherwise right now.
Actually, I said it.
Construct any arbitrarily convoluted thought experiment where I am forced to choose between the life of a civilian and the life of a soldier, where all other factors are equal, I will choose the civilian every single time.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.