A Man's HEAD IS SAWED OFF, and Now No One Cares...

[OCA]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Several of the deaths of Iraqiis and Afghanistans in captivity have been classified as homocides by military investigators. Is a bullet in the brain less or more vile than cutting off someone's head? Is there a moral difference?

If the execution of Berg is horrible, then why does the US continue to execute prisoners? I believe Texas, when Shrub was governor, set the record for executions. Would it be okay with you if theyhad given Berg a trial before they cut his head off?



And with regard to your previous post about the Geneva Convention, I just came upon this in the today's post:

"The backdrop for the policy was an event that occurred on May 1, 2003. President Bush landed that day on teh deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier off San Diago and declared that major combat operations were over. His declaration had direct but unpublicized consequences for those detained in Iraq military officials say: It ment they were no longer to be treated as prisoners of war, but instead as civilians held byan occupying power.

That ment, the officials said, that the detainees would come under the protections of the fourth artivcle of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly allows long-term detentions of those considered to pose a threat to governing authorities."

Apparently, the Geneva Convention does apply assuming these un-named "military officials" are correct.

I'll wait until somebody is convicted of first degree murder before I believe that charge.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
You are assuming that they are capable of being brought up to our level. From my conversations with my Habib friends no way no how are these guys going to become civilized, these are the dregs of the Arab society, exactly why they are excellent recruits by the religious zealots there. Even these guys say you are going to have to eventually kill every single one or they will never stop. Whether thats attainable or not I do not know.

I doubt thats attainable but if we need to kill each and everyone of them, then we should never take prisoners. Now, figure out the explanation to the public for shooting people who surrender on the field.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
I'll wait until somebody is convicted of first degree murder before I believe that charge.

One of ours or one of theirs?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I know what you meant and normally it could be assumed that the punishment dealt to those miscreants should state in no uncertain terms how we feel, but it never seems to work that way.

How do you mean?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Zhukov
How do you mean?

I remember from somewhere that a society is measured by blah blah blah. I dont remember the handful of reasons to replace the blah blah blah, but one of them was something about how they view crimes by the way they sentence the guilty. Something like that.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I doubt thats attainable but if we need to kill each and everyone of them, then we should never take prisoners. Now, figure out the explanation to the public for shooting people who surrender on the field.

Yeah thats a problem, let me think on that one for a bit but i'm sure I can come up with a believable scheme

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
One of ours or one of theirs?

I'll wait until one of ours is tried and convicted of murder before I make that charge. Maybe it was self defense? Who knows

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Now, figure out the explanation to the public for shooting people who surrender on the field.

Because leaving them behind you is tactically foolish.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I remember from somewhere that a society is measured by blah blah blah. I dont remember the handful of reasons to replace the blah blah blah, but one of them was something about how they view crimes by the way they sentence the guilty. Something like that.

Well that's what I mean.

How does the Arab world view terrorists?

Well, we've had people come on here and say 'the majority' or 'most' moslems reject terrorism. But we don't see or hear that rejection in the 'Arab street'.

How do we view deviants who sexually abuse prisoners?

We demote them, dishonorably discharge them, and throw their sick fucking asses in jail.

That is the mark of our society and who we are. We stand by our principles because we are the good guys.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Less. Probably not, but it's circumstantial.

Is there evidence that anyone was deliberately shot in the head? It was my impression that any 'homicides' were accidental in nature. Though they were indeed being tortured, the death of the prisoner was not the intention.

I'm trying to remember an article I read a couple of weeks ago. If I remember correctly the military had opened investigations into the deaths of 25 prisoners in captivity. As I recall, 10 were cleared, a couple were classified as homocides...one a gunshot to the chest and another guy who died when he was hit on the head with a rock...and others were still under investigation.

Originally posted by Zhukov
That is an idiotic comparison. We execute people who have been proven to be a danger to society by a jury.[/B]

It is not idoitic if you understand where I'm coming from. I start from the view that "Thou shall not kill" and "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord."

So for those who believe in those scriptures, killing is morally wrong, period. From that perspective it does not matter if the killer is the State, a hooded terrorist (Klan), or hooded terrorist (Iraqi).

Originally posted by Zhukov So what? [/B]

So what is that during Bush's governorship Texas executed people who were retarded and others who were minors when they committed their crime. It is an observation about the president morality or lack therof.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
I'll wait until one of ours is tried and convicted of murder before I make that charge. Maybe it was self defense? Who knows

unarguably, I've read of 3 deaths that were related to a prison riot. They were shot by the tower guards as they tried to escape. Too bad for them. But theres been one death that resulted in a negligent homicide charge and that soldier ended up with a reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge. The prisoners death was the result of being hit in the head with a brick sized stone. No mention of self defense, if there was I wouldn't have charged him.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Because leaving them behind you is tactically foolish.

Is that you Sun Tzu?

 

[OCA]

So what is that during Bush's governorship Texas executed people who were retarded and others who were minors when they committed their crime. It is an observation about the president morality or lack therof. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only power a Governor of any state has concerning executions is the power to issue a stay of execution. The Governor does not sentence, does not try and does not convict. For you to say that Bush is responsible for any wrongdoing, not that there was any wrongdoing because as far as I know nobody has charged or said anything about any Texas execution that I know of, shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning executions and a Governor's duties and furthermore shows you to be the ideological hack that I always knew you were.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
The only power a Governor of any state has concerning executions is the power to issue a stay of execution. The Governor does not sentence, does not try and does not convict. For you to say that Bush is responsible for any wrongdoing, not that there was any wrongdoing because as far as I know nobody has charged or said anything about any Texas execution that I know of, shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning executions and a Governor's duties and furthermore shows you to be the ideological hack that I always knew you were. [/B]

I think Texas allows the governer to commute a death sentence to life in prison.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I think Texas allows the governer to commute a death sentence to life in prison.

You are correct, I forgot that thanks. My point is still that he doesn't sentence, convict or pull the friggin switch.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
one a gunshot to the chest

Well, I think we can agree that the guy responsible for that should be tried for murder. Or maybe not, considering that sort of crime carries with it the penalty of death, to which you seem opposed.

It is not idoitic if you understand where I'm coming from. I start from the view that "Thou shall not kill" and "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord."

So for those who believe in those scriptures, killing is morally wrong, period. From that perspective it does not matter if the killer is the State, a hooded terrorist (Klan), or hooded terrorist (Iraqi).

Well, I disagree with that. I think there is a BIG differece between sawing off Nick Berg's head and electrocuting someone who rapes and murders children. You don't.

Bush's governorship...

Adequately addressed by OCA.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
It is not idoitic if you understand where I'm coming from. I start from the view that "Thou shall not kill" and "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord."

So for those who believe in those scriptures, killing is morally wrong, period.

That is not true. You are taking those scriptures out of context. The correct translation is:

Thou shall not MURDER. We have changed it over the years to kill. The Bible does recognize a difference.

10 Commandments: Exodus 20:13

Thou Shall Not Kill

The sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.” The New International Version translates it, “Thou shall not murder.” This is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.

Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment.

Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, “You shall not murder.”

 

[Zhukov]

Thanks for clarifying that Free. I knew that the Bible made a distinction, and I even knew the murder/kill difference but I had forgotten it.

The Bible wouldn't have lasted as long as it has if it was neutral on subjects like this.

Killing in self defense is alright as is killing in righteous anger.

 

[freeandfun1]

No problem. I cut and pasted that.... I didn't paste the link because, surprise, it came from a Christian website. Therefore, you know some would have said, "hey, what do they know abou the Bible?"!

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Pale Rider


I for one have heard enough about the prisoner depantsing. It's old news. It's not worth all the hype. Oh wait.... in the liberals eye's, taking someones pants off is worse than....

......BEHEADING!

Why do liberals take such seeming "pleasure" in trashing America?

So you've reduced the Abu incident(s) to a "depantsing"?
That's fair and honest reporting?

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha....