It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Soldier Gets Death Penalty

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The ironic thing is that this guy felt he was being comprimised by having to fight 'fellow muslims', but his actions have almost certianly resulted in fellow muslims in the US military geting the cold shoulder and falling under a suspicious eye. Its sad that patriotic and civically minded citizens are smeared by his actions, the high virtues get the short shrift because of this tool.


This guy joined a military that had already been involved in action in the Middle East, was still involved in action in the middle east, (not just Iraq, but Israel-Palestine too). Shouldn't he have taken into consideration that it was very likely that if he was deployed, it would be against fellow muslims?

The writing was pretty clear on the wall...




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDemonHunter
High morals? Yes, of course; I'd forgotten how just and humane it is to lock a person in a cage, allowing them out only for periods of each day to interact with other violent individuals of similar moral standing. After all, allowing him to die by another criminal's hand or as some would suggest, by the hand of a vengeful civilian, is obviously a sign of high morals, because it's not viewed as officially sanctioned or condoned at that point. Then we can have his death and cling to some vain attempt at moral superiority.


Who is talking about cages?
I wasnt, firstly DONT let them have any contact with any inmates.
Why is death more moraly right than imprisonment.


Seriously, let's get a grip on reality here. If locked up in a military prison, do you think he'll survive if allowed to interact with other convicts? How long until he's found hanging in his cell, by his own hand or with help? And if he does survive his captivity and the "rehabilitation" he'd have a chance for under your system, do you really believe he'd be safe once released from prison?

If he dies by his hand thats his choice, if he dies by another inmates hand thier a murderer.
If he does make it through then It would have to be a serios effort and NO second chances, one parole chance and thats all.


Oh wait, that's right. Part of the argument was that he'll have to face mistreatment and persecution once released, thus continuing his punishment -- the fate worse than death, as you termed it, even though you'd say that he's been "rehabilitated." Only then, any attacks on his life could jeopardize other innocent souls with no connection to his deeds. I'm sure there would be people marking the days on their calendar until his release, plotting an untimely demise.

Umm wait, how is it that others will be hurt?
Are you suggesting that people will bomb somewhere?
Also if anyone did that, they would face imprisonment.


Your system encourages mistrust on the streets of our communities. Your system encourages violence on the streets of our communities. Your system encourages honest citizens to live in fear of their neighbors' past deeds. Your system encourages vigilante justice. Your system encourages the angry mob mentality. Your system encourages higher costs and overcrowding in our prison systems. Your system encourages more lying and deception on the part of criminals who have some hope of release. Your system takes away the right to safety that each law-abiding citizen should have.

It does not, thats your interpretation.
What safety?
How many inocents die each year from bad by evidence?
That system insures no one dies, and if there is a vigilante attempt on the life then they will be prosocuted, in a diffrent fashion AKA locked up.
My idea of a system takes away no rights, also rights are a privilage as one of your many people said.


That's cruel and unusual punishment for anyone who lives next door to the criminal once they're released. That's cruel and unusual punishment for the police who then have to defend this person's rights as a member of society, placing themselves in harm's way when an ordinary citizen is making this person's life miserable. That's cruel and unusual punishment for the average taxpayer, who must pay to keep this person clothed, fed, and sheltered. That's cruel and unusual punishment not for the criminal, but for the victims' families, who have to see this pathetic excuse for a human being drawing breath each day while their loved one never will.

So you think its better to use the bullet huh?
Better to slaughter a man or butcher a man who is defenceless than lock him up?
Yes its very cruel and unusual because THAT system works a LOT better than simply killing a man, how? Because you cant bring back the dead.


That's not high moral standing. That's a refusal to accept reality as we know it in our society, in my opinion.

It is high moral standing not killing someone, I accept reality as I percieve and so do you.


I can accept that you're personally against killing and feel that no crime is worth dying for. That's your choice, and perhaps in some far-flung future there will be room to use that as the sole guideline.

We have no death sentance here an we're fine, not exsactly far flung.


I believe, however, that in reality there are no moral absolutes; there are no black and white, clear-cut, all-or-nothing ideals in meting out punishment for crimes against our citizens; that criminals' rights should not outweigh the rights of those they would do wrong against; and that sometimes we have to make difficult choices to keep the innocents of society safe.

Difficult choices?
What? Your placeing people above another therefore createing a second class citizen, the same arguement could be made about anything.
There are no moral absolutes but the fact is we CANT just accept that using an 8 pence bullet and a £1500 gun is far more civilised than locking a man away. Once we accept that killing a person except in self defence is ok we stop haveing morals.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
it will be a long time before Akbar is issued his 72 virgins. It's been a long time since I read the Koran, so I'm not sure of the details of Islam's view of heaven, but wouldn't it be funny if all those virgins were a bunch of whiney, hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical, hyper-phobic


Throw in an industrial strenght PMS (eternal, of course), and Akbar is in for a good ride LOL




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by TheDemonHunter
High morals? Yes, of course; I'd forgotten how just and humane it is to lock a person in a cage, allowing them out only for periods of each day to interact with other violent individuals of similar moral standing. After all, allowing him to die by another criminal's hand or as some would suggest, by the hand of a vengeful civilian, is obviously a sign of high morals, because it's not viewed as officially sanctioned or condoned at that point. Then we can have his death and cling to some vain attempt at moral superiority.


Who is talking about cages?
I wasnt, firstly DONT let them have any contact with any inmates.
Why is death more moraly right than imprisonment.


A cage, in this case, was merely used figuratively speaking as another name for a prison cell. I didn't mean to offend your moral sensibilities by implying that this person would be locked up in a barred/locked chamber of some kind that would prevent their free movement and.... oh wait.... what was I thinking? That IS a cage. A jail cell is simply a cage we put human beings in when they need to be confined, just as we do for animals in a zoo.

As for not allowing interaction with other inmates of similar moral standing, I'm presuming you mean that he'll spend the rest of his life in soitary confinement then. I'd forgotten that having high morals obviously includes a willingness to pay for someone else's mistakes -- ie taxpayers footing the bill while we keep this guy in a secured location where he won't interact with others. And here I was thinking this could more easily and efficient financially happen by imposing a death sentence and removing the burden they impose on society.



If he dies by his hand thats his choice, if he dies by another inmates hand thier a murderer.
If he does make it through then It would have to be a serios effort and NO second chances, one parole chance and thats all.


Do you actually believe that every "suicide" in jail is truly an event where the prisoner takes their own life? And that the killers always caught? If so, such naivete is rarely seen around these parts, high moral standing or no.



Oh wait, that's right. Part of the argument was that he'll have to face mistreatment and persecution once released, thus continuing his punishment -- the fate worse than death, as you termed it, even though you'd say that he's been "rehabilitated." Only then, any attacks on his life could jeopardize other innocent souls with no connection to his deeds. I'm sure there would be people marking the days on their calendar until his release, plotting an untimely demise.

Umm wait, how is it that others will be hurt?
Are you suggesting that people will bomb somewhere?
Also if anyone did that, they would face imprisonment.


Ah yes, always it goes back to bombings for some people, as though that's the only way you can kill more than one person in any given situation. Why is that?

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that it doesn't take a bomb to put innocents at risk. A man wielding a knife can injure or kill someone who gets in the way. A man with gun can hit the wrong target. So unless this person is permanently removed from any contact with another innocent soul, there's always a possibility that someone attacking him would also injure another person.





Your system encourages mistrust on the streets of our communities. Your system encourages violence on the streets of our communities. Your system encourages honest citizens to live in fear of their neighbors' past deeds. Your system encourages vigilante justice. Your system encourages the angry mob mentality. Your system encourages higher costs and overcrowding in our prison systems. Your system encourages more lying and deception on the part of criminals who have some hope of release. Your system takes away the right to safety that each law-abiding citizen should have.

It does not, thats your interpretation.
What safety?
How many inocents die each year from bad by evidence?
That system insures no one dies, and if there is a vigilante attempt on the life then they will be prosocuted, in a diffrent fashion AKA locked up.
My idea of a system takes away no rights, also rights are a privilage as one of your many people said.


Why safety? You say that the death sentence perpetuates the cycle of violence. I say it removes the violent offenders from society and prevents them from continuing it. And yes, that includes the vigilantes when warranted.

Your system puts the felons' rights before the innocents' rights. The criminal system isn't for dealing with people who are willing to ignore right and wrong. It's for dealing with people who know better and ignore that knowledge.

Not every case warrants a death sentence. This one clearly does though, in my opinion.




That's cruel and unusual punishment for anyone who lives next door to the criminal once they're released. That's cruel and unusual punishment for the police who then have to defend this person's rights as a member of society, placing themselves in harm's way when an ordinary citizen is making this person's life miserable. That's cruel and unusual punishment for the average taxpayer, who must pay to keep this person clothed, fed, and sheltered. That's cruel and unusual punishment not for the criminal, but for the victims' families, who have to see this pathetic excuse for a human being drawing breath each day while their loved one never will.

So you think its better to use the bullet huh?
Better to slaughter a man or butcher a man who is defenceless than lock him up?
Yes its very cruel and unusual because THAT system works a LOT better than simply killing a man, how? Because you cant bring back the dead.


No, we cannot bring back the dead. If we could, it wouldn't be an issue. Murder wouldn't be so high a crime. The death penalty wouldn't be so severe a sentence. But to deprive an innocent of their right to have their life continue, against their will, deprives you of your right to choose how your life continues.




I believe, however, that in reality there are no moral absolutes; there are no black and white, clear-cut, all-or-nothing ideals in meting out punishment for crimes against our citizens; that criminals' rights should not outweigh the rights of those they would do wrong against; and that sometimes we have to make difficult choices to keep the innocents of society safe.

Difficult choices?
What? Your placeing people above another therefore createing a second class citizen, the same arguement could be made about anything.
There are no moral absolutes but the fact is we CANT just accept that using an 8 pence bullet and a £1500 gun is far more civilised than locking a man away. Once we accept that killing a person except in self defence is ok we stop haveing morals.


I'm sure that anyone who ever killed in war time will be happy to know they're immoral if they fired first.


Meanwhile I'm not creating a second class citizen by condoning a death sentence for premeditated, cold-blooded murderers, as this case is about if you recall. I wouldn't say the death penalty is warranted for theft, assault, prostitution, drug possession, kidnapping, rape, and many other ills we can inflict on another person. Lock those people up all you want.

That's not what this was about though. This was different.

This was a murder committed by a soldier, in an attack against his fellow soldiers. This was a premeditated murder committed by a man who launched an attack against his fellows under cover of darkness while they slept. This was a betrayal of his country. This was a betrayal of his comrades-in-arms. This was an attempt to sabotage an entire military force.

I know I won't convince you of any of this, so I won't bother any further. But I wanted to state for the record, that this is not about revenge.

It's about removing revenge from the equation. It's about not wasting the resources we have to keep a convicted murderer alive, sheltered, fed, and clothed. It's about not asking others to pay for his acts. If you're prepared to take an innocent life, then you'd better be prepared to lose your own.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDemonHunter
A cage, in this case, was merely used figuratively speaking as another name for a prison cell. I didn't mean to offend your moral sensibilities by implying that this person would be locked up in a barred/locked chamber of some kind that would prevent their free movement and.... oh wait.... what was I thinking? That IS a cage. A jail cell is simply a cage we put human beings in when they need to be confined, just as we do for animals in a zoo.

And killing them is more humane?
Netheir is humane, just one is less humane than the other.


As for not allowing interaction with other inmates of similar moral standing, I'm presuming you mean that he'll spend the rest of his life in soitary confinement then. I'd forgotten that having high morals obviously includes a willingness to pay for someone else's mistakes -- ie taxpayers footing the bill while we keep this guy in a secured location where he won't interact with others. And here I was thinking this could more easily and efficient financially happen by imposing a death sentence and removing the burden they impose on society.

So thats what it all boils down to, you want to make a quick buck off some carcus?




Do you actually believe that every "suicide" in jail is truly an event where the prisoner takes their own life? And that the killers always caught? If so, such naivete is rarely seen around these parts, high moral standing or no.

Not every one but most are yes.
There in a prison, the chance to hide evidence is slim.



Ah yes, always it goes back to bombings for some people, as though that's the only way you can kill more than one person in any given situation. Why is that?

Well theres drive by's etc but the cheapest and simplist way is a bomb.


I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that it doesn't take a bomb to put innocents at risk. A man wielding a knife can injure or kill someone who gets in the way. A man with gun can hit the wrong target. So unless this person is permanently removed from any contact with another innocent soul, there's always a possibility that someone attacking him would also injure another person.

There's a higher chance of someone doing that at the trial never mind when he is out.



Why safety? You say that the death sentence perpetuates the cycle of violence. I say it removes the violent offenders from society and prevents them from continuing it. And yes, that includes the vigilantes when warranted.

What?
All it shows is that violence is ok, are you seriosly telling me that killing is ok?


Your system puts the felons' rights before the innocents' rights. The criminal system isn't for dealing with people who are willing to ignore right and wrong. It's for dealing with people who know better and ignore that knowledge.

What are you talking about?
We're talking about makeing him suffer by being second classed, or shoveing him in a cell. Not giveing him a golden handshake and booting him out of the army.


Not every case warrants a death sentence. This one clearly does though, in my opinion.

No, this one doesnt.



No, we cannot bring back the dead. If we could, it wouldn't be an issue. Murder wouldn't be so high a crime. The death penalty wouldn't be so severe a sentence. But to deprive an innocent of their right to have their life continue, against their will, deprives you of your right to choose how your life continues.


Really?
Ever heard this statement?
"an eye for an eye will make the world blind."


I'm sure that anyone who ever killed in war time will be happy to know they're immoral if they fired first.


Did I say that?
No I said in self defence, and in defence of others.
Unless your saying the man on the other end of the rifle doesnt have a gun and is infact an inocent?


Meanwhile I'm not creating a second class citizen by condoning a death sentence for premeditated, cold-blooded murderers, as this case is about if you recall. I wouldn't say the death penalty is warranted for theft, assault, prostitution, drug possession, kidnapping, rape, and many other ills we can inflict on another person. Lock those people up all you want.

You are, once you say its ok for one the rest will follow easily.
Do you know a scot was on death row for trying to save a baby from a burning building?
Some cold blooded murderer he was.


That's not what this was about though. This was different.

This was a murder committed by a soldier, in an attack against his fellow soldiers. This was a premeditated murder committed by a man who launched an attack against his fellows under cover of darkness while they slept. This was a betrayal of his country. This was a betrayal of his comrades-in-arms. This was an attempt to sabotage an entire military force.

So the ends justifies the means?


I know I won't convince you of any of this, so I won't bother any further. But I wanted to state for the record, that this is not about revenge.

It's about removing revenge from the equation. It's about not wasting the resources we have to keep a convicted murderer alive, sheltered, fed, and clothed. It's about not asking others to pay for his acts. If you're prepared to take an innocent life, then you'd better be prepared to lose your own.

It is about revenge, otherwise they would just lock him away.
Wasteing reasources, hah, you have any idea how much can be learned?
You figure out how a killer works, you can identify another like that earlier and save lives.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Um. NO. This is treason. Let's look at it from the other perspective. If we allow anything, that's what you will get, ANYTHING. Do we have to allow "anything" until it affects you?

Sorry, fry him.

BTW, I work in Corrections.




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join