USA against its own Soldier seeks the death penalty

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Strazdas:

Soods:

Strazdas:
they are charging soldier for fighting in a war. fun fun.

A murder is a murder, even in war.
OT: If they find him guilty, I think he deserves an extremely harsh sentence.

so we should jail any remaining ww pilots because they bombed a city and killed civilians? because they considered this "war necessity" back then.

Those pilots were acting unders orders intended to weaken the enemy's capacity for waging war, with the unfortuante side effect of ending civilian lives.

This person has taken it upon himself to kill civilians for no good reason.

The two situations are completely different.

Strazdas:
they are charging soldier for fighting in a war. fun fun.

Since when does fighting wars involve leaving the base without permission at night, and massacring random innocent people?

I'm pretty sure I never had anything like that in the rules of engagement.

Strazdas:
so we should jail any remaining ww pilots because they bombed a city and killed civilians? because they considered this "war necessity" back then.

By all accounts, the allied commanders who ordered terror bombing of German cities should've faced trial for warcrimes.

The pilots carrying those out had little to no choice however, as they can't disobey orders.

Blablahb:

Strazdas:
they are charging soldier for fighting in a war. fun fun.

Since when does fighting wars involve leaving the base without permission at night, and massacring random innocent people?

Since the Call of Duty franchise became the basis for the average person's understanding of warfare.

Strazdas:

Soods:

Strazdas:
they are charging soldier for fighting in a war. fun fun.

A murder is a murder, even in war.
OT: If they find him guilty, I think he deserves an extremely harsh sentence.

so we should jail any remaining ww pilots because they bombed a city and killed civilians? because they considered this "war necessity" back then.

There's a huge difference between bombing an enemy city in an attempt to cripple his war effort and lone soldiers finding and killing as many civilians as they can simply for the sake of it.

Geth Reich:

Strazdas:

Soods:

A murder is a murder, even in war.
OT: If they find him guilty, I think he deserves an extremely harsh sentence.

so we should jail any remaining ww pilots because they bombed a city and killed civilians? because they considered this "war necessity" back then.

There's a huge difference between bombing an enemy city in an attempt to cripple his war effort and lone soldiers finding and killing as many civilians as they can simply for the sake of it.

civilians or not civilians. enemy is enemy. people have forgotten how to do war, whether this is for better or worse remains to be seen....

The person should be executed. He was sent to do a specific job which he vastly overstepped the boundaries of, and he is a murderer.

Strazdas:
civilians or not civilians. enemy is enemy. people have forgotten how to do war, whether this is for better or worse remains to be seen....

Don't be ridiculous. The guy murdered random innocent civilians. He's just a spree killer.

If you really meant that and weren't just stirring something up, I'd seriously suggest you refrain from talking about military matters. FPS games and historical games from centuries ago are a pretty poor basis from making judgements about modern warfare and the conventions of war.

Heck, in Rome Total War, you could enslave a town if you conquered it, but who'd use that to say that enslaving the civilians of any town you take from an opposing force, is a legit tactic?

Blablahb:

Strazdas:
civilians or not civilians. enemy is enemy. people have forgotten how to do war, whether this is for better or worse remains to be seen....

Don't be ridiculous. The guy murdered random innocent civilians. He's just a spree killer.

If you really meant that and weren't just stirring something up, I'd seriously suggest you refrain from talking about military matters. FPS games and historical games from centuries ago are a pretty poor basis from making judgements about modern warfare and the conventions of war.

Heck, in Rome Total War, you could enslave a town if you conquered it, but who'd use that to say that enslaving the civilians of any town you take from an opposing force, is a legit tactic?

Its funny how you all think i base my ideas from games. that is completely not true. If anything, most basis comes from WW2 documentaries.
I do am stirring something up, and getting very interesting responses, at least you all show your true colours (not implying your bad or anything) and thats nice.
When i posted my original post, i didnt had the whole story. So im sorry for making fast assumtion. he is indeed in the wrong here. However terror tactics are part of war.

Strazdas:

Blablahb:

Strazdas:
civilians or not civilians. enemy is enemy. people have forgotten how to do war, whether this is for better or worse remains to be seen....

Don't be ridiculous. The guy murdered random innocent civilians. He's just a spree killer.

If you really meant that and weren't just stirring something up, I'd seriously suggest you refrain from talking about military matters. FPS games and historical games from centuries ago are a pretty poor basis from making judgements about modern warfare and the conventions of war.

Heck, in Rome Total War, you could enslave a town if you conquered it, but who'd use that to say that enslaving the civilians of any town you take from an opposing force, is a legit tactic?

Its funny how you all think i base my ideas from games. that is completely not true. If anything, most basis comes from WW2 documentaries.
I do am stirring something up, and getting very interesting responses, at least you all show your true colours (not implying your bad or anything) and thats nice.
When i posted my original post, i didnt had the whole story. So im sorry for making fast assumtion. he is indeed in the wrong here. However terror tactics are part of war.

Part of war, yes. Illegal and immoral? Also Yes. Do you instead claim that they shouldn't be, because they were used with success in the past?

Strazdas:

Blablahb:

Strazdas:
civilians or not civilians. enemy is enemy. people have forgotten how to do war, whether this is for better or worse remains to be seen....

Don't be ridiculous. The guy murdered random innocent civilians. He's just a spree killer.

If you really meant that and weren't just stirring something up, I'd seriously suggest you refrain from talking about military matters. FPS games and historical games from centuries ago are a pretty poor basis from making judgements about modern warfare and the conventions of war.

Heck, in Rome Total War, you could enslave a town if you conquered it, but who'd use that to say that enslaving the civilians of any town you take from an opposing force, is a legit tactic?

Its funny how you all think i base my ideas from games. that is completely not true. If anything, most basis comes from WW2 documentaries.
I do am stirring something up, and getting very interesting responses, at least you all show your true colours (not implying your bad or anything) and thats nice.
When i posted my original post, i didnt had the whole story. So im sorry for making fast assumtion. he is indeed in the wrong here. However terror tactics are part of war.

.
Information is in your fingertips - There's a source right there in the OP. After you've read more about the topic, what do you think of this?

TheIronRuler:

What do you think about it? Should the USA be able to punish the soldier with death? After all they enlisted him and gave him the gun. Shouldn't they be blamed too?

Unless he was ordered to kill those civilians, he has full responsibility on his own stupid actions. With Military hardware or not.

Though there is a sense of irony here, killing innocent civilians in a war that started because someone (else) killed innocent civilians.

Ranorak:

TheIronRuler:

What do you think about it? Should the USA be able to punish the soldier with death? After all they enlisted him and gave him the gun. Shouldn't they be blamed too?

Unless he was ordered to kill those civilians, he has full responsibility on his own stupid actions. With Military hardware or not.

Though there is a sense of irony here, killing innocent civilians in a war that started because someone (else) killed innocent civilians.

.
I'm sorry to say but that's not irony. Plus, why did you reply to my post? I was talking to another user.

TheIronRuler:

Ranorak:

TheIronRuler:

What do you think about it? Should the USA be able to punish the soldier with death? After all they enlisted him and gave him the gun. Shouldn't they be blamed too?

Unless he was ordered to kill those civilians, he has full responsibility on his own stupid actions. With Military hardware or not.

Though there is a sense of irony here, killing innocent civilians in a war that started because someone (else) killed innocent civilians.

.
I'm sorry to say but that's not irony. Plus, why did you reply to my post? I was talking to another user.

I replied to your opening post, you know, the one that started this thread?
But... you might be right about the irony part, tricky stuff.

Realitycrash:

Strazdas:

Blablahb:
Don't be ridiculous. The guy murdered random innocent civilians. He's just a spree killer.

If you really meant that and weren't just stirring something up, I'd seriously suggest you refrain from talking about military matters. FPS games and historical games from centuries ago are a pretty poor basis from making judgements about modern warfare and the conventions of war.

Heck, in Rome Total War, you could enslave a town if you conquered it, but who'd use that to say that enslaving the civilians of any town you take from an opposing force, is a legit tactic?

Its funny how you all think i base my ideas from games. that is completely not true. If anything, most basis comes from WW2 documentaries.
I do am stirring something up, and getting very interesting responses, at least you all show your true colours (not implying your bad or anything) and thats nice.
When i posted my original post, i didnt had the whole story. So im sorry for making fast assumtion. he is indeed in the wrong here. However terror tactics are part of war.

Part of war, yes. Illegal and immoral? Also Yes. Do you instead claim that they shouldn't be, because they were used with success in the past?

War is illegal and immoral. Both concepts we create and we can change. if a think is sucesful enough it suddenly becomes legal and moral thing to do (example: hiroshima and nagasaki bombing, apprently it was "Saving our soldier lives" therefore the "Right" thing to do).
thats the whole point i been making lately - people have forgotten what WAR is.

TheIronRuler:

Strazdas:
[quote="Blablahb" post="528.393869.15957992"]snip

.
Information is in your fingertips - There's a source right there in the OP. After you've read more about the topic, what do you think of this?

I think that the soldier is in the wrong in this case.
And since i am a supported or death penalty for serial killers, i find that to be appropriate punishment in this case.

Strazdas:

Realitycrash:

Strazdas:

Its funny how you all think i base my ideas from games. that is completely not true. If anything, most basis comes from WW2 documentaries.
I do am stirring something up, and getting very interesting responses, at least you all show your true colours (not implying your bad or anything) and thats nice.
When i posted my original post, i didnt had the whole story. So im sorry for making fast assumtion. he is indeed in the wrong here. However terror tactics are part of war.

Part of war, yes. Illegal and immoral? Also Yes. Do you instead claim that they shouldn't be, because they were used with success in the past?

War is illegal and immoral. Both concepts we create and we can change. if a think is sucesful enough it suddenly becomes legal and moral thing to do (example: hiroshima and nagasaki bombing, apprently it was "Saving our soldier lives" therefore the "Right" thing to do).
thats the whole point i been making lately - people have forgotten what WAR is.

TheIronRuler:

Strazdas:
[quote="Blablahb" post="528.393869.15957992"]snip

.
Information is in your fingertips - There's a source right there in the OP. After you've read more about the topic, what do you think of this?

I think that the soldier is in the wrong in this case.
And since i am a supported or death penalty for serial killers, i find that to be appropriate punishment in this case.

1: There are both legal, and moral wars (World War II was an instance of both, if you ask me).
2: Even if a war isn't, why shouldn't we try to limit the immorality carried out in it?

Realitycrash:

1: There are both legal, and moral wars (World War II was an instance of both, if you ask me).
2: Even if a war isn't, why shouldn't we try to limit the immorality carried out in it?

1. All wars are invasion of other territory, that is never legal.
All wars are immoral because wars mean destruction of other sides people and valuables.
World war 2 was not moral, but it was a retaliation of hitlers attacks. modern civilization took the "right" approach in thier belief, and since winners write history.....
2. because thats not how you make a decisive win.

Strazdas:

2. because thats not how you make a decisive win.

But it often is. You have to play nice if you want people on your side, and you often need people on your side if you want to win. War crimes tend to turn people against you.

thaluikhain:

Strazdas:

2. because thats not how you make a decisive win.

But it often is. You have to play nice if you want people on your side, and you often need people on your side if you want to win. War crimes tend to turn people against you.

only if your propaganda department sucks.

Strazdas:

thaluikhain:

Strazdas:

2. because thats not how you make a decisive win.

But it often is. You have to play nice if you want people on your side, and you often need people on your side if you want to win. War crimes tend to turn people against you.

only if your propaganda department sucks.

If by "sucks" you mean doesn't totally control all information being passed around. Even if you are going to lie, it's best to mix some truth into it.

Strazdas:

Realitycrash:

1: There are both legal, and moral wars (World War II was an instance of both, if you ask me).
2: Even if a war isn't, why shouldn't we try to limit the immorality carried out in it?

1. All wars are invasion of other territory, that is never legal.
All wars are immoral because wars mean destruction of other sides people and valuables.
World war 2 was not moral, but it was a retaliation of hitlers attacks. modern civilization took the "right" approach in thier belief, and since winners write history.....
2. because thats not how you make a decisive win.

1: Yes, yes they are. Internationally sanctioned wars of aggression are legal, as are defensive wars which merits a counter-offensive
And what.."All wars are immoral"? Didn't you JUST say that morality was a social construct? Our morality is clearly constructed as to dictate that some wars ARE.

2: Yeah, if you want to have decades of resistance, international sanctions against you and in general be considered scum of the earth.

Death penalty would be applicable, to be honest.

Realitycrash:
1: Yes, yes they are. Internationally sanctioned wars of aggression are legal, as are defensive wars which merits a counter-offensive
And what.."All wars are immoral"? Didn't you JUST say that morality was a social construct? Our morality is clearly constructed as to dictate that some wars ARE.

2: Yeah, if you want to have decades of resistance, international sanctions against you and in general be considered scum of the earth.

I dont think Iraq though that the invasion was legal. UN is not NWO you know.
Well, if you dont want to be all those things you have two options: 1. dont start a war. 2. make use of the might is right and write your own history.

Strazdas:

Realitycrash:
1: Yes, yes they are. Internationally sanctioned wars of aggression are legal, as are defensive wars which merits a counter-offensive
And what.."All wars are immoral"? Didn't you JUST say that morality was a social construct? Our morality is clearly constructed as to dictate that some wars ARE.

2: Yeah, if you want to have decades of resistance, international sanctions against you and in general be considered scum of the earth.

I dont think Iraq though that the invasion was legal. UN is not NWO you know.
Well, if you dont want to be all those things you have two options: 1. dont start a war. 2. make use of the might is right and write your own history.

I don't have to cite the UN, I can just cite the Geneva-convention, or any other charter which a country has signed and thus are sworn to obey. If they have signed it, and they violate it, then it is illegal. If certain conditions aren't violated, though, then it isn't illegal.

Aaaaaand sometimes, I don't start a war, but a war is pushed on me ("me" as a nation), and I'm defending myself. Thus in my counter-offensive to end the war, it's fully moral (if no other options to end it is viable, blah blah, all else equal), and legal.

To the people who don't believe in the death penalty let me ask a question: Why would you not make an exception for a man who so clearly deserves it? My problem with putting him in prison for life is that the cost of food and his room comes from taxes, if they could find a way that maybe his family had to pay it all or something I'd be fine with it.

Xan Krieger:
To the people who don't believe in the death penalty let me ask a question: Why would you not make an exception for a man who so clearly deserves it? My problem with putting him in prison for life is that the cost of food and his room comes from taxes, if they could find a way that maybe his family had to pay it all or something I'd be fine with it.

As opposed to paying the much higher costs of appeals which are constitutionally guaranteed under the Due Process Clause?

Don't make a "it costs less to kill him" when evidence suggests otherwise.

----

On topic, if you're a nation which has the death penalty, this strikes me as one of those few "exceptional moments" where it is appropriate. However, there should ideally be no more than one such case per decade in order to emphasize the nature of what should constitute what is considered by law to be the harshest sentence.

I don't believe in vengeance-based punishments. I believe in a reformative system for criminals, not a storage system. I think the soldier should undergo psychological evaluation to see if he's even sane. Just because he knew what he was doing doesn't mean he knew the gravity of it. Yeah it's tragic what he did to those people, but punishing him won't bring them back.

To those that are relating this to dropping a bomb into a populated area, that is not equivalent. In the case of bombers, they do not know who exactly their bomb killed until after it's dropped. All they know is the intended target. This is not the case with ground troops. When you're on the ground, gun in hand, there's a huge difference between enemy combatants and women and children. One fires back at you, the other is an innocent civilian, to be protected and not listed as collateral damage. If this guy knowingly and willfully killed innocent people, he should receive the harshest punishment allowable by law.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked