Prisoner murdered by soldier - gets off without jail time

[drewshin]

Saw this story on Drudge:

Link to Story

An Army official said that a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock, and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time.

Is this the norm for what happens to soldiers who kill other people? It seems like a very light sentence to me. You can kill someone purposefully and not even serve any jail time?

 

[Passions]

Laws are different in times of war.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Passions
Laws are different in times of war.

When did Congress Authorize this as a "WAR"?

Is this they way YOU WANT OUR Prisoners to be treated? It is a very dangerous precedent your mouth is creating.

 

[chess9]

There's something wrong with that story. He must have been attacked and defended with deadly, but inappropriate, force. Otherwise, Leavenworth would have a nice warm bed for him.

-Robert

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: chess9
There's something wrong with that story. He must have been attacked and defended with deadly, but inappropriate, force. Otherwise, Leavenworth would have a nice warm bed for him.

-Robert

The problem is.. how do we define attack from an enemy that is being wrongly held? What if he spit on the officer and he murdered him because of it? Would that be acceptable? *I'm just asking questions.. not arguments.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Punished for getting stoned with a prisoner ?

 

[chess9]

No, that would not be acceptable. If the prisoner came at him with a knife then deadly force would probably be ok. But, if that had happened he wouldn't have been punished at all. He would have probably gotten a purple heart. Anyway, I suspect the soldier just lost it after the prisoner dissed him or pushed him or maybe even struck him. We need the facts because this is all speculation.

IF this is a punishment for killing someone who did nothing, then it is a serious miscarriage of justice. Of course, this is military justice....

-Robert

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Passions
Laws are different in times of war.

The Bush administration actually has me confused as to whether this *IS* really a war or not. They have their prisoners in Guantanamo, but some in the administration have said that they are prisoners of war and should be treated by the Geneva convention rules, others have said they are "enemy combatants" and not bound by those rules.

Now we find out that soldiers working in the prison may have not even been taught what the Geneva convention rules are, and they are also using private contractors to interrogate "prisoners of war" although not required to follow Geneva convention guidelines either.

It seems up and down the whole chain of command no one really knows if we are in a war situation or not, so it's pretty much make your own rules as you go along.

Of course, these soldiers need a clear message from up top so that everyone knows what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you won't get that from this administration, you'll just get a bunch of different answers suited for a particular situation.

 

[klah]

An Army official said that a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock, and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time.

Is this the norm for what happens to soldiers who kill other people? It seems like a very light sentence to me. You can kill someone purposefully and not even serve any jail time?

The NYT reported that this individual and some prisoners were throwing rocks at each other.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Passions
Laws are different in times of war.

When did Congress Authorize this as a "WAR"?

there was a nice resolution that passed through congress. sounds good enough to me. nothing in the consttution says that there need be specific wording.

 

[ElFenix]

Is this the norm for what happens to soldiers who kill other people?

isn't the job of the soldier to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his?

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: drewshin
Saw this story on Drudge:

Link to Story

An Army official said that a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock, and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time.

Is this the norm for what happens to soldiers who kill other people? It seems like a very light sentence to me. You can kill someone purposefully and not even serve any jail time?

Well first and foremost that story in your link is far to incomplete to draw any conclusions from. The only facts given at all is that the soldier killed the prisoner with a rock. there is no information about the circumstances at all. Is it possible that the soldier threw a rock at the prisoner as an angry response to some action by the prisoner like may the prisoner threw a rock at him first or if the sodier was just being an idiot and accidently killed him by throwing a rock at him. If it were something like that then I could see a resolution like that. Basically it would amount to negligent homicide. Lots of people are convicted of negligent homicide in this country every year and never serve any jail time. Fact is there is such a complete lack of details surrounding the event in your story that it makes it not worth discussing. Your discussing it as if it is a fact that the soldier walked up to a defenseless prisoner and bashed his head in with a rock. There is simply no information in your article that supports that scenario. Without a considerably more detailed account of the events it is not worth discussing.

 

[B00ne]

Yes this is the norm, even without war. Remember when this fighter pilot(s) killed around 20 ppl in Italy because they were pulling some Hot Shots stunts. Guess what the punishment was? Nothing, there wasnt even an apology by the US side when I recall it right.

There is a reason why the US objects the IC or demands immunity for its soldiers....

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Yes this is the norm, even without war. Remember when this fighter pilot(s) killed around 20 ppl in Italy because they were pulling some Hot Shots stunts. Guess what the punishment was? Nothing, there wasnt even an apology by the US side when I recall it right.

There is a reason why the US objects the IC or demands immunity for its soldiers....

yeah

I remember that because there were 5 Belgians killed in that incident.

The pilot also destroyed a video tape from the incident and even then he was aquitted

the official ruling was that this was a training accident



:roll:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Wasn't that pilot actually sentenced to six months in prison? Not enough though.

Anyways, I can understand the US for not wanting its soldiers to be tried by these international courts...too many people would salivate at the very thought of having a US 'prisoner'. It would probably be very hard to get a fair trial and it would probably be made into a spectacle.

While it was a horrible accident and he should have received a more severe punishment than a discharge and 6 months of jail time (definitely not nothing), some of these posts here are a good example of why the US would try to avoid this. People would make an accident the same as cold and calculated murder.

Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[B00ne]

Well I dont hink the IC works the way u describe it here.

But anyway, yes you are right the Italy thing was an accident and no murder. However it was a provoked accident due to not following the rules of conduct and probably also a bit of arrogance towards the host nation (or maybe just we are not at home, we can do what we want). The six month is new to me as far as I know there was an investigation but the pilot didnt get anything just a "doo doo this was bad"

But I could be wrong - I could just google it though. But that is not so important it was just an example of how the military leadership sometimes closes both eyes when their personnel is doing things they are not supposed to be doing.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I agree with you. The pilot should have received a far more serious punishment.

And what is described in the article here is 10000x worse, IMO. While the death toll was even worse in Italy, it seems that this soldier killed a prisoner on purpose. It was no accident from what I read. He needs to be jailed for a long time. He's a disgusting excuse for a human being.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Wasn't that pilot actually sentenced to six months in prison? Not enough though.

Anyways, I can understand the US for not wanting its soldiers to be tried by these international courts...too many people would salivate at the very thought of having a US 'prisoner'. It would probably be very hard to get a fair trial and it would probably be made into a spectacle.

While it was a horrible accident and he should have received a more severe punishment than a discharge and 6 months of jail time (definitely not nothing), some of these posts here are a good example of why the US would try to avoid this. People would make an accident the same as cold and calculated murder.

Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.

the pilot tampered with a video tape of the accident after he landed the plane. Why would you do that if you know it was an accident? He was doing some stunt flying and he destroyed important evidence. He was flying too fast and too low. You can google if you want. I don't say that the pilot is a murderer and he certainly did not killed all these people on purpose but just a slap on the wrist for such irresponsible behavior is not good enough.

the family of the victims did not get a fair trial, they didn't even received official apologies from the military

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Wasn't that pilot actually sentenced to six months in prison? Not enough though.

Anyways, I can understand the US for not wanting its soldiers to be tried by these international courts...too many people would salivate at the very thought of having a US 'prisoner'. It would probably be very hard to get a fair trial and it would probably be made into a spectacle.

While it was a horrible accident and he should have received a more severe punishment than a discharge and 6 months of jail time (definitely not nothing), some of these posts here are a good example of why the US would try to avoid this. People would make an accident the same as cold and calculated murder.

Too bad we don't live in a perfect world.

the pilot tampered with a video tape of the accident after he landed the plane. Why would you do that if you know it was an accident? He was doing some stunt flying and he destroyed important evidence. He was flying to fast and to low. You can google if you want. I don't say that the pilot is a murderer and he certainly did not killed all these people on purpose but just a slap on the wrist for such irresponsible behavior is not good enough.

the family of the victims did not get a fair trial, they didn't even received official apologies from the military

I already said that.

He probably tampered with the tape b/c he was afraid. Even if it was an accident, which it probably was, he would still be in trouble. I guess he thought he could get out of it if he got rid of some of the evidence.

You say that you didn't say that he was a murderer, but it seems fairly implied in your posts. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. However, why say 'Why would you do that if you know it was an accident?' kind of says that you suspect that it might have been murder.

The families didn't receive a fair trial...but he probably would not have received a fair trial in Italy or anywhere else anyways, IMO. It sucks though and it is sickening.

 

[freegeeks]

I already said that.

He probably tampered with the tape b/c he was afraid. Even if it was an accident, which it probably was, he would still be in trouble. I guess he thought he could get out of it if he got rid of some of the evidence.

You say that you didn't say that he was a murderer, but it seems fairly implied in your posts. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. However, why say 'Why would you do that if you know it was an accident?' kind of says that you suspect that it might have been murder.

The families didn't receive a fair trial...but he probably would not have received a fair trial in Italy or anywhere else anyways, IMO. It sucks though and it is sickening.

to make it absolutely clear

the guy is not a murderer. He didn't plan to kill 20 people. What he did was involuntary homicide and manslaughter but he was aquitted from that. If this was really a training accident like the military wants us to believe why would the pilot destroy the video data? The pilot could use the tape in his defense but he still makes a decision to destroy something that could prove that he was not doing some stuntflying.

btw: he did fly too low and too fast - that is a fact

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: chess9
There's something wrong with that story. He must have been attacked and defended with deadly, but inappropriate, force. Otherwise, Leavenworth would have a nice warm bed for him.

-Robert

Thats what I was thinking. There is not author or crdits for the story. It is very slim on details. The author could have interpreted it as being murder, but it could have as easily been self defense and the soldier wrongly put himself in the position he was in. Hence a reduction in rank and no jail time. But until there are more details its just more disinformation being spread.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: chess9
There's something wrong with that story. He must have been attacked and defended with deadly, but inappropriate, force. Otherwise, Leavenworth would have a nice warm bed for him.

-Robert

Thats what I was thinking. There is not author or crdits for the story. It is very slim on details. The author could have interpreted it as being murder, but it could have as easily been self defense and the soldier wrongly put himself in the position he was in. Hence a reduction in rank and no jail time. But until there are more details its just more disinformation being spread.

I agree looks like disinformation to me. Only thing we know is he killed a prisoner with a rock. the article has absolutely no details concerning the circumstances of the event. The implication is that he murdered a defenseless prisoner with a rock to the head. The creator of this thread either bought the implication hook line and sinker or knows it for what it is and doesn't care wishing only to create a thread whose premise has no details to back it up.