• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US solider receives life sentence.

Higgins86 said:
BBC News - Afghan massacre soldier Robert Bales gets life sentence


The US soldier who murdered 16 Afghan villagers last year has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Staff Sgt Robert Bales, 40, opened fire on men, children and women during the attack in Kandahar on 11 March 2012.

The father of two pleaded guilty in June to avoid the death penalty.

Justice for the victims or should he have got the death penalty?
Click to expand...

The death penalty would be a mercy for him. He can think about this, curled up in his cell, for many decades to come. He has embarrassed our nation far more than Manning or Snowden could even aspire to. He will not be loved or be treated as hero. Killing families isn't cool.
 
Higgins86 said:
I just think it makes the West look like hypocrites, we send war criminals to the Hague to be tried as a war criminals, endorse the execution of dictators like Saddam, executed Bin Laden on the spot etc but when its one of our own we are suddenly all humanitarians. Just seems to me like people don't mind the dirty work being done as long as its not one of their own who is affected by it.
Click to expand...

Who's "we?" And just because my government might endorse something, that certainly doesn't mean that I do. I am an individual person you know with my OWN thoughts and feelings.
 
ChrisL said:
Who's "we?" And just because my government might endorse something, that certainly doesn't mean that I do. I am an individual person you know with my OWN thoughts and feelings.
Click to expand...

your a tax payer....
 
RDS said:
Hamid Karzai reading this news will be telling himself "Holy ****, he took 16 lives and now he is enjoying free food and lodging for life"
Click to expand...

That is the reward given to most murderers that we all work to pay for.
 
Red_Dave said:
If he killed people in the U.S we wouldn't even be discussing this, why are Afghan civilians of less value? If we regard the lives of those we are supposed to be protecting so callously then what are we doing there?
Click to expand...
I think it's more of a preventative mission than anything else at this point. What was the background of each of the victims? How many potential, or existing, terrorists were in that group? In a way, did he do this country a favor or was it a gross disservice? The point is, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, and the Middle East for that matter, and regroup. It's time to get back to a more reactionary stance but with a deadly caveat. "You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, or we make a parking lot out of your country". Something to that effect.
 
Dooble said:
I think it's more of a preventative mission than anything else at this point. What was the background of each of the victims? How many potential, or existing, terrorists were in that group? In a way, did he do this country a favor or was it a gross disservice? The point is, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, and the Middle East for that matter, and regroup. It's time to get back to a more reactionary stance but with a deadly caveat. "You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, or we make a parking lot out of your country". Something to that effect.
Click to expand...

yeh that worked really well in the 1930's and 40's, really scared Japan off lol.
 
If they did not excute Lt. William Calley then this guy should not go to the gallows either but they both should have been shot in my mind. Lwt's see what the sentnece is for the Fort Hood incident with one oustnding difference, the killer in that wants to be killed.
 
Higgins86 said:
what you ended up being dragged into a cold war and were from that point on dragged into every world issue?
Click to expand...

I'd say we officially (and willingly) entered the global affairs business in 1918. The end of the Second World War just marked a giant leap into global affairs, but it was a leap we took voluntarily. We weren't dragged into anything.
 
Dooble said:
I think it's more of a preventative mission than anything else at this point. What was the background of each of the victims? How many potential, or existing, terrorists were in that group? In a way, did he do this country a favor or was it a gross disservice? The point is, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, and the Middle East for that matter, and regroup. It's time to get back to a more reactionary stance but with a deadly caveat. "You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, or we make a parking lot out of your country". Something to that effect.
Click to expand...

No, don't even go there. There is justication in killing "potential" terrorists, this aint ****ing Minority Report were we find people guilty of crimes they haven't even committed yet.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, but representing himself, doing a horrible job and calling no witnesses to add to that?
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no requirement for the military court is hand down a death penalty, unlike the civilian court system the voters can't influence sentences with mandatory sentences. The President can't increase a sentence- only reduce it.

A military defense lawyer can do a craaaaapy job in defense and still 'win' if keeping the death penalty off the table is considered winning.

Calley didn't die, Manning didn't die or for that matter get the full 90 years.
 
ecofarm said:
That is the issue. Dropping context and employing absolutism is no way to debate.
Click to expand...

No it isn't the issue, a military court is under no obligation to sentence anyone to death. Death is the MAXIMUM penalty- there is no mandatory sentencing like in a civilian court.

Hasan can plead guilty, demand the death penalty (to be a martyr :roll: ) and the judge accept the plea but sentence Hasan to life without parole.

It isn't absolutism, it is military law.
 
notquiteright said:
There is absolutely no requirement for the military court is hand down a death penalty, unlike the civilian court system the voters can't influence sentences with mandatory sentences. The President can't increase a sentence- only reduce it.

A military defense lawyer can do a craaaaapy job in defense and still 'win' if keeping the death penalty off the table is considered winning.

Calley didn't die, Manning didn't die or for that matter get the full 90 years.
Click to expand...

My point was that later on he may call for a mistrial for incompetent representation, which can and does happen.
 
ChrisL said:
So that can't happen in military court? Why not?
Click to expand...

Military courts are not run like civilian courts. The defendant can refuse all legal assistance and that will have zero affect on an appeal. All the evidence of his guilt, innocence or guilt of a lesser charge has no affect on the sentence life/death. In this particular case can there be any doubt who killed all those Soldiers at Ft. Hood? Major Hasan was caught literally with the smoking gun in hand. A platoon of soldiers survived the attack and identify him as the shooter.

No fancy defense was going to alter the verdict.
 
Surtr said:
I'd say we officially (and willingly) entered the global affairs business in 1918. The end of the Second World War just marked a giant leap into global affairs, but it was a leap we took voluntarily. We weren't dragged into anything.
Click to expand...

No you entered global affairs in 1918 with the support of the league of nations but the US never joined and were not a global player again until WW2
 
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty. I think it's used too often, and also used to coerce confessions so death is "taken off the table." It's become almost routine that almost every premeditated murder, regardless of circumstance or number of victims (unless it's a spouse... that's kind of a "free pass" pet peeve of mine that will be saved for another thread.)

That said, I would not have blinked if Bales had been sentenced to death.

However, it's chilling that some think he should have been given death specifically so America would "look good" to other nations. WTF?? I'll add that I personally suspect if that had been the case and Bales had been given a death sentence, this thread (or others) would have been all about the uncivilized nature of America that supports the barbarism that is the death penalty. I've seen those threads over and over for the decade+ that I have been on the internet. I've no reason to think it would be any different in this case.
 
Andalublue said:
That's the clincher. It must feel inconvenient for military judicial system that he and the Fort Hood shooter were sentenced on the same day. The fact will not be lost on the world that the Fort Hood shooter was not permitted to enter a guilty plea and avoid the death penalty, whereas Bales was. It's unsurprising Bales victims feel they were robbed of justice, even though I think LWP is the correct verdict for both cases.
Click to expand...

Meh.

I think you're just looking for an excuse to shout bigotry.

The circumstances of the crimes, evidence against each man, and cooperation between them and the courts couldn't be more different All of this ignores life without parole and the death penalty are the exact same sentence these days but I suspect the sentences would/will end up being the same if the skin color and religion of those killed was switched.
 
DiAnna said:
I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty. I think it's used too often, and also used to coerce confessions so death is "taken off the table." It's become almost routine that almost every premeditated murder, regardless of circumstance or number of victims (unless it's a spouse... that's kind of a "free pass" pet peeve of mine that will be saved for another thread.)

That said, I would not have blinked if Bales had been sentenced to death.

However, it's chilling that some think he should have been given death specifically so America would "look good" to other nations. WTF?? I'll add that I personally suspect if that had been the case and Bales had been given a death sentence, this thread (or others) would have been all about the uncivilized nature of America that supports the barbarism that is the death penalty. I've seen those threads over and over for the decade+ that I have been on the internet. I've no reason to think it would be any different in this case.
Click to expand...

The simple fact of the matter is that Bales didn't kill Americans. He killed Afghans. "Justice" was never ours to give in the first place.

Either way you want to look at it, you can hardly deny the fact that ignoring the feelings of the crime's actual victims just so we can "circle the wagons" around one of our own sends kind of a lousy message to the Afghan people.

It basically undermines everything we have spent the last decade working to achieve. It makes it seem like we value the life of one American scumbag more than the lives of dozens of the people our troops are supposedly trying to protect.

The real tragedy of the thing is that the undeserved "mercy" shown towards Bales in this instance will probably only wind up costing the lives of more Americans in the long run, as quite a few disgruntled Afghans will inevitably decide to take it upon themselves to enact the retribution for Bales' crimes that we explicitly failed to deliver.

I'm sorry, but, Robert Bales, being the human trash that he is, simply doesn't warrant the effort IMO. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
No it isn't the issue, a military court is under no obligation to sentence anyone to death. Death is the MAXIMUM penalty- there is no mandatory sentencing like in a civilian court.

Hasan can plead guilty, demand the death penalty (to be a martyr :roll: ) and the judge accept the plea but sentence Hasan to life without parole.

It isn't absolutism, it is military law.
Click to expand...

The court wanted that scumbag to have a chance to explain himself, garner sympathy, perhaps use his attorney. And you think that's a bad thing - unbelievable.
 
Higgins86 said:
Yes it is! Heartbreaking as well considering he has two kids who will grow up without a father. You have to wonder was he always a bad egg or did soemthing actually set him off out there?
Click to expand...

You feel it is heartbreaking? What about the friends and families of those 16 massacred people who will have to live with their loss? I guess all of that is OK for you because they are not real people in your world. It is unfortunate for his children their father is such a slimy POS. However, they are better off without a person like that in their life, and we are better off with him out of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom