Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

USA - Double Standards.

last reply
10 replies
963 views
0 watchers
0 likes
Unknown User
U.S. Army officer Nidal Malik Hasan (pictured) is sentenced to death for killing thirteen people in the Fort Hood shooting.

and
U.S. soldier Robert Bales is sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of sixteen Afghan civilians in the Kandahar massacre.

Looking at the two cases, I would hazard a guess that the pre-meditated execution of civilians, which included 9 children, that you were supposedly protecting as part of the military incumbent was as equal if not greater crime than that of Hasan's
Whilst I don't condone execution as a penalty for committing a crime, surely consistency should be the Armies buzzword?
Trevaunance
Sex God
On the face of it both cases appear to be very similar, but when you look deeper there are differences.
Ultimately Bales entered into a plea bargain and pleaded guilty, whereas Hasan didn't. By pleading guilty Bales was able to avoid the death penalty, whereas Hasan couldn't.
Unknown User
And there lies the problem...plea bargaining.
You commit the crime, you do the time...
None of this pleading and lying your remorseless ass out trouble! I suppose God loves a pleader!
Trevaunance
Sex God
I suppose I see this from a different angle. Admitting you are guilty is accepting responsibility for the crime.
Bales accepted responsibility and was tried by a jury.
Hasan refused to enter a plea; He chose to represent himself but failed to cross examine any witnesses or offer a defence case, defence witness or closing statement. He knew he faced the death penalty but rejected any opportunity to prevent execution.
Unknown User
He was prevented from entering any defence as the judges ruled that his defence was not mitigating. A lot of American lawyers and military defence counsel are up in arms about the judges ruling in this matter.
Unfairly treated I say, whilst the outcome would have probably been the same, this isn't a fair trial.
There was a risk to finding him guilty if he had been able to give his defence. His defence was he was acting as a war combatant in taking American soldiers lives as they had taken Afghanis. Therefore he would have had to have been tried as a prisoner of war and no death penalty is available for that crime.
Trevaunance
Sex God
I'm surprised that there would have been no alternative to trying him as a PW. The USA defines treason in its constitution as 'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort' Surely his defence of 'acting as a war combatant in taking American soldiers lives' would have been enough?
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the federal justice system. However they have both been found guilty and neither of them will ever walk the streets of America again or put service men and women in danger.
Unknown User
Service men and women get paid to be in danger...it's a prerequisite of the job description. Civilians don't.
Trevaunance
Sex God
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Service men and women get paid to be in danger...it's a prerequisite of the job description. Civilians don't.

Servicemen and women do expect to be put in danger, that is quite right. However they don't expect it when they are in the confines of their own base, in their home country. They expect danger when deployed or carrying out any number of duties that carry greater risk than a civilian career, but should they really expect it when sat in a health centre?
I'm sure that Pvt Francheska Velez didn't expect to be put in danger under any circumstances. She was pregnant, and was shot while pleading with her killer not to kill her unborn child. They both died in what can only be described as an execution.
There may be doubts in your mind whether it was a fair trial, which I understand. However the facts are clear, Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 more. Who these people were are what their chosen career was is irrelevant under the circumstances.
Unknown User
It stands to reason no-one deserves to be killed. To take another humans life is abhorrent and I condemn anyone who does so.
But why should it be that when you are at war/in conflict not to expect the enemy to come knocking at your door when you are knocking on his?
If you take a fight to someone, don't be surprised if they come and bring the fight back to you!
Trevaunance
Sex God
Quote by Rogue_Trader
If you take a fight to someone, don't be surprised if they come and bring the fight back to you!

Which is precisely why they have control of entry, ID cards, car permits, armed guards, patrols, dogs, turrets, police, search procedures, no personal weapons policies, as well a background intelligence and numerous other things.
In this case the security has failed because of the insider threat, a case of looking the wrong way if you will. However the danger on operations is expected, the danger of getting shot at point blank range by a medical professional from your own military behind the screen of security cannot reasonably be expected in my opinion.
In the spirit of what I said before, Hasan has been found guilty and will never walk the streets of America again or put people in danger again.