• 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.

ecofarm said:
Not just another country, but specifically to please the Taliban.

We better do what they want!!

The question becomes: is this nonsense the result of bloodlust in general or a desire to appease terrorists, or both?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What I do know is that some people seem to think that they can judge whether or not someone has the "right" to continue to live or not and a lot of people seem to not understand the purpose of the appeals process and just want to kill someone as soon as they are convicted.
 
Gathomas88 said:
He should have gotten the death penalty; for international PR reasons, if nothing else.

"Life in prison" isn't something that's really done in that part of the world, so a ruling like this just comes off as being a slap in the face to the victims' families.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much where I stand on the issue but then again its a dangerous game when you start sentencing your own citizens just to appease other nations.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Because we don't have to kill anyone, and we are not to take such actions against our own citizens.

I think you're a religious person, so how do you justify making that decision instead of God? It's a completely hypocritical position to take IMO.
Click to expand...

The greater good. If we were talking about rehabilitation, that would be one thing. However, we are not.

We are talking about locking someone away to rot in a cage for the next fifty some odd years while we all pay to keep them fed, clothed, and in good health.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't really see the point. We know they're guilty. We know that we have no intention of ever allowing them to contribute to our society again.

Why keep them around?

God judges everyone in the end, regardless of how they happen to meet their end.

ecofarm said:
No one deserves the death penalty. If your motive is international relations, perhaps we should execute a few generals.
Click to expand...

If the Generals in question were guilty of anything so heinous as Robert Bales' crimes, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Your bloodlust is showing.
Click to expand...

It's war. :shrug:

Robert Bales is a war criminal. He should be treated as such.

So what? Terrorists use anything and lie to create propaganda. There's no stopping that.
Click to expand...

Which justifies giving them further ammunition they can use to turn the Afghan population against us?

You think the Taliban is holding out on us? You think they choose not to bomb when they could? Nonsense. The Taliban bombs whenever it can.
Click to expand...

And what about incidents like the following?

Afghan soldier kills 2 ISAF troops in latest green-on-blue attack

There have been dozens of such incidents in the last year. The Bales ruling will do nothing to make them any less likely. It will probably have exactly the opposite effect.

It sounds like the terrorists have won. You want to appease them out of fear.
Click to expand...

Deliberately going out of one's way to antagonize a population you are attempting to pacify doesn't make the least amount of sense in any context.

It has nothing to do with "fear."

ecofarm said:
Not just another country, but specifically to please the Taliban.

We better do what they want!!
Click to expand...

That is not even remotely what I said.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
There's no "gotcha" kick. Just you talking in circles in order to justify dogmatic absolutism.
Click to expand...

I think in the case of opposing killing, dogmatic absolutism is justified.
 
Gathomas88 said:
The greater good. If we were talking about rehabilitation, that would be one thing. However, we are not.

We are talking about locking someone away to rot in a cage for the next fifty some odd years while we all pay to keep them fed, clothed, and in good health.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't really see the point. We know they're guilty. We know that we have no intention of ever allowing them to contribute to our society again.

Why keep them around?

God judges everyone in the end, regardless of how they meet their end.
Click to expand...

Then we are no better than the person we kill. Killing for "convenience" does NOT make it okay in any sense.
 
Personally I think we undermine all the work the West has been trying to acheive in this region. The guy became a mass-murderer and broke the law in the theater of War whilst serving his country ( a country who follows international law in battle) therefore he is a war-crinimal in the eyes of many. The danger with this case is that we are becoming hypocrites as we teach law and order, "civility" and condem the Taliban as cold blooded killers but then when a western soldier commits a crime against humanity we fail to hold him to the same standards as our enemy. The same goes with the Marines pissing on dead bodies etc, I think we need to set an example and unfourtuntly we are not doing that.
 
ChrisL said:
Then we are no better than the person we kill. Killing for "convenience" does NOT make it okay in any sense.
Click to expand...

No offense, but when we are discussing a war which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people at the very least (many of whom were very likely innocent), the judicial killing of a single homicidal maniac would strike me as being a rather odd place to draw the line; especially when it might actually wind up saving more lives in the long run to simply have them executed.

Going by the logic you have elaborated upon above, how can you justify killing in any context?
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
No offense, but when we are discussing a war which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people at the very least (many of whom were very likely innocent), the judicial killing of a single homicidal maniac would strike me as being a rather odd place to draw the line; especially when it might actually wind up saving more lives in the long run to simply have them executed.

Going by the logic you have elaborated upon above, how can you justify killing in any context?
Click to expand...

War is war. Locking somebody up and then killing them is a completely different scenario.
 
Higgins86 said:
Personally I think we undermine all the work the West has been trying to acheive in this region. The guy became a mass-murderer and broke the law in the theater of War whilst serving his country ( a country who follows international law in battle) therefore he is a war-crinimal in the eyes of many. The danger with this case is that we are becoming hypocrites as we teach law and order, "civility" and condem the Taliban as cold blooded killers but then when a western soldier commits a crime against humanity we fail to hold him to the same standards as our enemy. The same goes with the Marines pissing on dead bodies etc, I think we need to set an example and unfourtuntly we are not doing that.
Click to expand...

What makes us hypocrites is when we condemn other countries for using methods such as stoning and then turn around and execute. The method is NOT what matters.
 
Gathomas88 said:
No offense, but when we are discussing a war which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people at the very least (many of whom were very likely innocent), the judicial killing of a single homicidal maniac would strike me as being a rather odd place to draw the line
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable point, but it suggests one has been phlegmatic and accepting of the tens of thousands of deaths. The issue here has nothing to do with symbolism or diplomacy or PR, but with justice and there are many people who feel that the death penalty has no part to play in it.
 
Andalublue said:
I think in the case of opposing killing, dogmatic absolutism is justified.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an evangelist. Dogmatic absolutism is never justified.
 
Gathomas88 said:
That is not even remotely what I said.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you said: we should kill Americans to appease the Taliban. Allu ackbar!
 
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. Not only for murdering innocents, but for dishonoring the service.
 
ChrisL said:
What makes us hypocrites is when we condemn other countries for using methods such as stoning and then turn around and execute. The method is NOT what matters.
Click to expand...

I disagree this wasn't a civillian this was a solider who signed up to serve in the armed forces. He was trained and authorised to kill and to follow strict code and law. He took advnatage of this training to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people he was supposed to defend. I only wish it was how it was 60 years ago and the army could of just put this guy in front of a firing squad and be done with it.
 
apdst said:
The death penalty. Not only for murdering innocents, but for dishonoring the service.
Click to expand...

edit: I'm a dope who can't read.
 
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...

He definitely should have got the death penalty.
 
Definitely, the death penalty is wrong, even for a horrible crime like this. But I'm glad that this man was brought to justice. A military uniform is not a license to murder. Too many people believe that it is.
 
ChrisL said:
War is war. Locking somebody up and then killing them is a completely different scenario.
Click to expand...

Would you say that it was wrong to execute the Nazi war criminals responsible for the Holocaust and other atrocities at Nuremburg after WW2?

Would you say it was wrong to hang Saddam Hussein?

What about Bin Laden, for that matter?

I have absolutely no problem with paying evil unto evil.

ChrisL said:
What makes us hypocrites is when we condemn other countries for using methods such as stoning and then turn around and execute. The method is NOT what matters.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there is a bit of a difference between slowly bludgeoning someone to death with thrown stones for something so minor as an extramarital affair, and more or less painlessly killing someone guilty of going on a pre-meditated murderous rampage responsible for the deaths of dozens of innocent people.

I also do not necessarily see life in a cage as being any more humane than a quick death.

Andalublue said:
That's a reasonable point, but it suggests one has been phlegmatic and accepting of the tens of thousands of deaths
Click to expand...

War ultimately has to be a cold and rational affair. Emotions will get you killed, and misplaced gallantry often causes more problems than it solves.

The issue here has nothing to do with symbolism or diplomacy or PR, but with justice and there are many people who feel that the death penalty has no part to play in it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. However, I would still argue that a strong case can be made in favor of the death penalty here.

What good does it do anyone to save one worthless psychopathic excuse for a human being if it might possibly winding up costing the lives of dozens of other people who are not guilty of any crime whatsoever in the long run? What good does it do if it only really serves to help destabilize a nation with a population of millions?

Lofty ideals are well and good, but they must ultimately take a back seat to simple pragmatism. Bales' actions were heinous, and he really should have been made an example of.

Personally, I almost think it would have been better if we had simply turned him over to Afghans.
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
I disagree this wasn't a civillian this was a solider who signed up to serve in the armed forces. He was trained and authorised to kill and to follow strict code and law. He took advnatage of this training to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people he was supposed to defend. I only wish it was how it was 60 years ago and the army could of just put this guy in front of a firing squad and be done with it.
Click to expand...

He's a human being, and I don't believe that killing them is what our government should be doing.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Would you say that it was wrong to execute the Nazi war criminals responsible for the Holocaust and other atrocities at Nuremburg after WW2?

Would you say it was wrong to hang Saddam Hussein?

What about Bin Laden, for that matter?

I have absolutely no problem with paying evil unto evil.



To be fair, there is a bit of a difference between slowly bludgeoning someone to death with thrown stones for something so minor as an extramarital affair, and more or less painlessly killing someone guilty of going on a pre-meditated murderous rampage responsible for the deaths of dozens of innocent people.

I also do not necessarily see life in a cage as being any more humane than a quick death.



War ultimately has to be a cold and rational affair. Emotions will get you killed, and misplaced gallantry often causes more problems than it solves.



Perhaps. However, I would still argue that a strong case can be made in favor of the death penalty here.

What good does it do anyone to save one worthless psychopathic excuse for a human being if it might possibly winding up costing the lives of dozens of other people who are not guilty of any crime whatsoever in the long run? What good does it do if it only really serves to help destabilize a nation with a population of millions?

Lofty ideals are well and good, but they must ultimately take a back seat to simple pragmatism. Bales' actions were heinous, and he really should have been made an example of.

Personally, I almost think it would have been better if we had simply turned him over to Afghans.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with any of those people serving a life term.
 
Guy needs his goose cooked.
 
ChrisL said:
He's a human being, and I don't believe that killing them is what our government should be doing.
Click to expand...

You government and my own government order the killing of many evil people why should he be excused for his crimes? What if we let him loose in the desert and killed him with a drone, would that be more acceptable?
 
Higgins86 said:
You government and my own government order the killing of many evil people why should he be excused for his crimes? What if we let him loose in the desert and killed him with a drone, would that be more acceptable?
Click to expand...

Look, I don't believe in the death penalty okay? I already told you that they can be locked up.
 
ChrisL said:
Look, I don't believe in the death penalty okay? I already told you that they can be locked up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 gives a xxxt? This is our country, he's one of our guys who lost his mind. We'll set him free if we want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom