Reply
Sat 5 Apr, 2003 12:22 pm
GI charged in attack on 101st Airborne
Posted: Saturday, April 5, 10:22am EST
A US soldier could face the death penalty after being charged with murder for allegedly tossing grenades into his comrades' tents in Kuwait last month. Two officers were killed in the attack, and 14 soldiers were wounded in the March 23 attack at Camp Pennsylvania. Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar was charged two days after the attacks. Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division, announced the charges Friday. Akbar is the only person charged in the attack at the command center of the 101st Division's 1st Brigade. Akbar is being held at an undisclosed US military facility. Military lawyers assigned to represent Akbar had no comment, the military's statement said. Dennis Olgin, a retired judge advocate general's corps officer, said the charges carry the death penalty. A commander overseeing the case will decide what penalty to seek, Olgin said.
If convicted do you believe the accused deserves and should recieve the death penalty?
I'm not an expert on Military Law, but I think that IF Akbar is found guilty--and sane--that the death penalty might be indicated.
I do not support the death penalty but having said that I believe this situation's best outcome would have been for the man who threw the grenades to have been shot down during his attack.
You know - you have to wonder how much this happens - but in a more covert way.
There are persistent rumours from WW I of Australian men shooting certain brutal British officers during exchanges of fire, because they did not like the way they treated their men.
Nothing would be easier in such conditions, I guess. There are tales of the apostate Emperor Julian dying in battle from a spear cast by one of his own men.
I wonder what the full story behind this one is.
Not that I think it excuseable.
And I am ALWAYS against the death penalty.
Why?
Because the legal questions would have been avoided while the satisfying revenge given.
Many Americans will not accept anything other than death for this man. He might get this penalty from a kangaoo, ahem, military court. If he were shot in the attack then all the chest thumping calls for blood will be avoided and yet the blood lust satisfied.
...considering reaction to this...
Very interesting ..... so you posit it is a moral good if an opportunity for people to immerse themselves in revenge fantasies for months and years is avoided - but the blood lust is satisfied?
I guess, if it were to be satisfied in the end, as I imagine this one will be, that that IS a good. In a karmic sort of a way.
Do you think there might be some good to come from the elucidation of whatever the events were that triggered this act?
My sense of the ironic is, of course, triggered by the difference the WHEREABOUTS of the grenade makes to people's moral sense - thoug, of course, I understand it.
craven
That is a cop out.If I understand you correctly It's ok if he was killed in the act. Since apparently you think that is what he deserves. However, it is wrong for a jury of his peers the one you label as a kangeroo court renders a death penalty verdict.
dlowan,
You understand my post. I only add that I don't really care about the blood lust being satisfied or not but if it is not said immersion will take place.
au1929,
I think the death penalty is primitive. I never commented on the morality of the man dying. In war, which is already primal, defense against an attack is quotidian and easily forgotten.
I understand that many are willing to subject themselves to their primal urges, I do not comment on the moral issue of one being killed.
I simply stated that I prefer that an individual in already primal conditions commits this act instead of a court. I never said the verdict was wrong. I do think the laws that allow our nation to remain in league with primitive culture makes our society primitive more so than an individual's act would.
Hmm - I also find it interesting, and actually reasonable, Craven, that you find the moral damage lessened if the execution is committed in the heat of battle, rather than in the cool light of court.
raven
I understand your line of reasoning. However, I hope you don't mind if can't quite digest it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace