Guardsman killed Iraqi after sex

freeandfun1 said:
The Iraqi was a National Guardsman. Again, GuardsMAN not GuardsBOY.

Do you realize the age of consent in many US states is 16? So you are grasping.

Look, I don't think gays should be in the military either. At least, not in front-line units. But that is another thread.

The guy was, obviously, not gay and that is, most likely, why he did what he did (murdering the Iraqi after the sex).

iraqi guardsman is not the same as an american national guardsmen... two different nations, two different cultures, and certainly this 17 year old boy is not up to the training standards the US soldier is....

i am not grasping, i am simply saying, wow,we got folks here who are claiming what this monster did is proof why gays shouldn't be in the military... i say pooey and that's them in here spreading their anti-gay agenda, i also say there are plenty of gays in the military everybody knows about and damn near everybody that realizes what they are has little to no problem with it because they don't make it an issue (that is another thread though, i apologize)

this is perfect proof monsters shouldn't be allowed in the military, not gays

and i don't care if in most states the legal consent is 16, wow, some states its 18... my personal belief and that of the legal system i've encountered in several states was it was 18...

underage to me is someone that can't smoke, vote or be in a porno movie... damn that's 18 last time i checked buddy

another thing, the US does not determine whether the iraqi was underage, the iraqis do... by their law

we don't have a SOFA with the Iraqis right now, so on another note, what does that mean in the larger scheme of things way beyond this monster's crime?
 
-=d=- said:
Lots of speculation, and blatant disregard for life. What you are suggesting is tantamount to "Well, Soldiers are going to commit crimes anyway - why NOT allow for yet another motivation to cover a crime?"

no blatant disregard for life is the sentence this guy got (25 years, WTF? he should have gotten life)

from the link:
Maj. Robert Carver, a spokesman at the N.C. National Guard's Raleigh headquarters, said Guard leaders here knew little about the case. He said that if there was anything positive about the unpleasant case it was that it should serve notice to Iraqis about how justice should work.

justice should work? in the islamic tinted law most iraqis would prefer to have, this idiot would have gotten the death penalty or something very close in severity... this sounds like more some EU "blame the system, not the criminal" sentence than an american one
 
NATO AIR said:
iraqi guardsman is not the same as an american national guardsmen... two different nations, two different cultures, and certainly this 17 year old boy is not up to the training standards the US soldier is....

First of all, how do you know it wasn't the Iraqi that first broached the subject? It does say CONSENTUAL. The Iraqi may have been the aggressor. I mean, homosexuality is VERY common in Muslims countries amoung males.

this is perfect proof monsters shouldn't be allowed in the military, not gays

I agree, but sometimes people BECOME monsters and aren't necessarily monsters when they join.

and i don't care if in most states the legal consent is 16, wow, some states its 18... my personal belief and that of the legal system i've encountered in several states was it was 18...

Here's a chart.... you will be surprised....

The Iraqi info is as of 2001, so it is a bit outdated...

underage to me is someone that can't smoke, vote or be in a porno movie... damn that's 18 last time i checked buddy

Well then we have a bunch of underage folks in the US military. I joined at 17. Couldn't vote, couldn't drink and couldn't be in a porn, but I could die for my country.

another thing, the US does not determine whether the iraqi was underage, the iraqis do... by their law

Exactly. So why are YOU trying to decide?

we don't have a SOFA with the Iraqis right now, so on another note, what does that mean in the larger scheme of things way beyond this monster's crime?

We don't have one because Iraq's judicial system and prison system is not up to snuff yet. Once it is, I am sure we will have a SOFA agreement. There is no formal government yet, so how can we have SOFA?

SOFA = Status of Forces Agreement

We are still at war, so the status is, all crimes are to be punished under the UCMJ.
 
NATO AIR said:
iraqi guardsman is not the same as an american national guardsmen... two different nations, two different cultures, and certainly this 17 year old boy is not up to the training standards the US soldier is....

Training has nothing to do with it. Would US Army Basic Training have tought the Iraqi guy 'not' to engage in homosexual acts?

i am not grasping, i am simply saying, wow,we got folks here who are claiming what this monster did is proof why gays shouldn't be in the military...

Read again - this case makes a good 'argument' for 'homosexual conduct is not condusive to good soldiering'. Nobody is suggesting it's 'proof'. That's your word, bro.

i say pooey and that's them in here spreading their anti-gay agenda, i also say there are plenty of gays in the military everybody knows about and damn near everybody that realizes what they are has little to no problem with it because they don't make it an issue (that is another thread though, i apologize)

I've known homosexuals in the Military. I've served and trained with a man named Roger for whom I'd have taken a bullet. Roger was/is? a man of character, and if I could find him today, I'd be his close friend. Roger and I both knew Roger's 'addiction' to homosexual behavior went against Nature, God's, and Military Law.

this is perfect proof monsters shouldn't be allowed in the military, not gays.

We can't weed out who MIGHT become a killer - we can only look at the past actions of those who serve. A past which shows homosexual activity is but ONE indication the person hasn't the self-control neccessary for service.

my personal belief and that of the legal system i've encountered in several states was it was 18...

UCMJ. Look it up. 16 is the age.

underage to me is someone that can't smoke, vote or be in a porno movie... damn that's 18 last time i checked buddy

Not in every state, nor every country. Again, read the UCMJ. FWIW the age of consent isn't a constant. IMO, people achieve that age at different times. My wife was 17 when we were engaged. We didn't have actual intercourse until we wed, a year later, but I'm sure the activities we engaged in 'could' bring prosecution in some instances. Was my wife of age to consent? Of course. If she can consent to marriage, she can consent to sex. That's one example.

another thing, the US does not determine whether the iraqi was underage, the iraqis do... by their law

Really? where?
 
NATO AIR said:
no blatant disregard for life is the sentence this guy got (25 years, WTF? he should have gotten life)

info:

In the United States, life imprisonment usually lasts until the prisoner dies. Sometimes life terms are given in sentences that are longer than how long the prisoner is expected to live on purpose, e.g. a 200-year sentence for multiple counts of murder. In actuality, a life sentence does not always mean "imprisonment for life." In many states, one can be paroled out of a life sentence after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given. Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served. Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President.
 
he murdered an iraqi solider in cold blood, he should be left in iraq to rot... sorry my personal opinion, not the law, i blended the two, as well as the underage argument, i apologize

as far as monsters not being allowed in the military, i realize you can't tell who they are in boot or anywhere else till they act out, but its a risk you take, along with many others, when you put hundreds of thousands of men in a combat zone or a blue water ops deployment, their true colors tend to come out then
 
I can't find any data, but I'd suspect his sentence is not different than others have recieved with otherwise NO criminal history.
 
CSM said:
How the guy only gets a 25 year sentence for murder is beyond my comprehension....not really, but his sentence should have been a lot harsher in my opinion.


Hell, lots of people stateside get a mere 7 years for murder.


A
 
dang it, gop_jeff....

Whilst at lunch he brought up a good point:

"If the dont ask, don't tell policy weren't in effect, would the young soldier have felt shamed enough to kill the Iraqi?"

Hmm...We can only speculate as to whether or not the soldier was more ashamed of violating rules of nature, or rules of UCMJ, however.
 
-=d=- said:
dang it, gop_jeff....

Whilst at lunch he brought up a good point:

"If the dont ask, don't tell policy weren't in effect, would the young soldier have felt shamed enough to kill the Iraqi?"

Hmm...We can only speculate as to whether or not the soldier was more ashamed of violating rules of nature, or rules of UCMJ, however.

If the dont ask, don't tell policy weren't in effect, he probably wouldn't be in
the military...
 
I was just playing devil's advocate...

Frankly, the sentence is a good fit, I think. It sounds like 2nd degree murder (I didn't read the story), not 1st degree, and 25 years for 2nd degree is about the midpoint of sentencing, if I remember my UCMJ correctly.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
-=d=- said:
I'd bet a lot less of that takes place in Military Prisons...
happens less than it probably does in a civilian prison. but it does happen. i was a guard at the USDB on Ft. Leavenworth fora 18 months. shitty work being a prison gaurd
 
freeandfun1 said:
once he became a soldier, he wasn't underage. so don't try to twist that around.

why would he kill the girl if it were consensual? from what I read in the article, he did it because he was disgusted by what he did and he was trying to get rid of the "evidence".

Why should he be disgusted by his sexuality? That is the true sickness.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top