Death penalty for our military soldiers?

Question

Do you believe the Army Investigators are right or wrong in
recommending the death penalty for four soldiers who killed
people in a raid in Iraq?

I thought war meant each side tries to kill the other side. Are
there degrees of fairness in killing?

To jl_jack09: What has Clinton to do
with my question?

Answer 1

Well, even in war there are certain rules and laws you have to follow. You can't just go out and kill people for the heck of it or out of anger, which is what they claim these soldiers did, then they messed with evidence to make it look like it all happened a different way. I'm not saying I'm for or against them seeking the death penaly, I have mixed feelings. They shouldn't have done what they did, it was completely and totally wrong and illegal, but going to war changes who you are as a person so it's a really tough call. I'm an Army wife, I've seen how deployments, war, trauma, etc. changes the military members as well as their families.

Answer 2

we've not got the dying penalty right here interior the united kingdom, i in my opinion have no emotions one way or the different, yet concidering the fairly some strategies we've dispatched our criminals that's probable extra helpful we don't even nonetheless it continues to be on our staute books. by ability of that I mean there continues to be one crime for which that's obtainable to settle for the dying penalty and that's treason. we nevertheless have a working gallows at wandsworth penitentiary, that are examined on a daily basis in the event that they could be needed. the tactic that we would use could be putting!! we dont have the electrical powered chair or deadly injection or the gasoline chamber, we've interior the previous had some fairly grusome strategies of killing off our criminals, which contain burning on the stake, beheading, and putting drawing and quartering, there have been different strategies such because of the fact the iron maiden. the final concept at the instant is that there is not any reprieve from being ineffective and a few of hose complete have been stumbled directly to be harmless some years after the execution, the undertaking is the place do yuou draw the line, in case you will want the dying penalty then you definitely might desire to settle for that errors take place and that frequently the incorrect all human beings is killed. Dave

Answer 3

So when Clinton was president you never said one thing bad about him, right? As to your question. I see you know nothing of war. In war your only live for today. Your life is not the same. As a person are not the same. If you know war you would know this. War is hell on Earth, you become much like the animal you are told to be, kill or be killed that is now your life. That does not mean you can rape and murder civilians.
In Iraq since Desert Storm over 300,000 civilians have died, they are in fact "liberated".
In Nam, we should have learned the lesson from 58,000 lost. That lesson is simple. Guerrilla warfare can not be won. The mental stress comes when the fear of those that hide and plot to kill you are killing others with ease all around you. Murtha knows this, he has lived it. Bush does not know war, he has never lived it and Cheney has never lived it.

Answer 4

Yes, there are degrees of killing. If the civilians were killed in a fire fight, then the soldiers didn't do anything wrong. These soldiers went into a home, according to the military, and just killed these civilians for no reason. Soldiers, I know, have trouble sometimes trying to figure out who is a combatant and who is a noncombatant, but apparently these soldiers didn't care either way. They were going to kill people.

Answer 5

A soldier or marine should not get the death penalty for killing someone the government trained them to kill. Those men were just doing what they were told and paid to do. I support the death penalty whole heartedly in other circumstances and think it should be implemented for several other types of crimes. But not for these.

Answer 6

Unless we are prepared to say that participation in a war is a blank check for any kind of behavior a soldier chooses to indulge in, there must be consequences for their actions that fall outside military action guidelines.

Answer 7

If these men purposely killed these people knowing they were not a threat (children can not be considered a threat), it is not any sort of act of war, it is murder. If they threw handgrenades or whatever into a room from which fire is being taken, it is an unfortunate act of war. If you are defending murderers, you need to reanalyze your position...personally, I'll wait to find out more facts, the military will not execute innocent men.

Answer 8

Wrong. Even though what they did was unexcusable, these men were soldiers that were serving their country. It's ironic that they were protecting a country that is based on freedom and justice, and that same justice system is putting them to death.

Answer 9

The Geneva Convention, which we were a part of, set guidelines to adere to during wartime. You break the rules you pay a price.