First the Koran Burnings, Now This; I Think We're Donesies in the 'Stan

[Husar]

No I just believe in fair and western justice. He WILL die if found guilty by the military. And he will receive a FAIR trial. If he is tried by the barbarians he will not receive a fair trial and he will die all the same albeit in a more gruesome manner which is completely irrelevant.

Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial, so why should this mass murderer get one?

[Centurion1]

Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial, so why should this mass murderer get one?

Strawman!

Completely different scenarios. Bin Laden is an established enemy of the country engaged in armed resistance and attempting to kill us with his legions of men and resources. This guy is one single man.

More importantly this man turned himself in and surrendered willingly. Bin Laden died in combat. Do you think we should shoot him in the head now to make it more comparable to Bin Laden?

I didn't see you complaining when the norwegian shooter was taken into custody? Is that man due a fair trial?

Then why isnt this man?

Please bring something more substantial to the table next time.

[johnhughthom]

Ridiculous. You're basically saying that because he didn't take the options he had seriously that his choice is valid? What?

It may not have been as simple as not taking the options available to him, mental illness is not always something easy to talk about. It may well be he didn't even realise himself, and he suddenly snapped. He could have found it difficult to talk about, or perhaps was afraid of what was happening. Calling it a choice may well be invalid. Then again, he may have planned it in a rational and calculated manner. We don't know.

As has been said before, I am surprised this doesn't happen more often, the unique nature of this case should be a mark of the professionalism of the forces in Afghanistan.

[rory_20_uk]

Bin Laden died in combat.

As long as the term "combat" means that there was a gun in the same room as Bin Laden, as I believe that he was unarmed at the time he was assassinated in an illegal raid in a foreign sovereign power (illegality as defined by both Pakistani, UN and American law).

[Vladimir]

As long as the term "combat" means that there was a gun in the same room as Bin Laden, as I believe that he was unarmed at the time he was assassinated in an illegal raid in a foreign sovereign power (illegality as defined by both Pakistani, UN and American law).

We're not equating illegal with bad are we?

[Vuk]

No... I was stating that those things that are put in place might help. To think that a few classes are going to manage to offset the hell of that country is is, well, ridiculous.

That I can understand what he did does not mean I condone what he did. The validity of what he did surely depends on one's personal stand. I don't think it's valid but then I don't think that the whole enterprise is either.

How can you defend something like this? That is the entire problem with liberals right there, they try to absolve the individual of responsibility. When you murder two entire families, you have to take responsibility for it. Does it even matter if he was in a messed up mental state? There are plenty of service men and women who have severe PTSD and don't go around killing civilians. Whether or not he had mental problems, he is still a dangerous murderer who needs to be put down. Plain and simple.

[rory_20_uk]

No. But if one gets into basing who can go around killing people on whether it is "bad" nor not, whose definition of "bad" do we use? That is one of the main reason for having laws in the first place. Most countries answer this question with "mine", so of course every one plays by the rules unless they don't feel like doing so.

[Fragony]

Have the Afghans offially trial him, what better way to distantiate from this, no longer army, no longer American. Symbolism of course but a gesture nonetheless

[Vuk]

Have the Afghans offially trial him, what better way to distantiate from this, no longer army, no longer American. Symbolism of course but a gesture nonetheless

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there), and then if he is found guilty, put him down ourselves in a humane manner. Hanging is a barbarous, torturous, way of killing that has no place in the modern world.
If he was one of their, I would say let them do whatever they want, because it is not our responsibility. But he is not one of theirs, so we have a duty to ensure that there is a fair trial and (if found guilty) a humane execution.

[Fragony]

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there), and then if he is found guilty, put him down ourselves in a humane manner. Hanging is a barbarous, torturous, way of killing that has no place in the modern world.
If he was one of their, I would say let them do whatever they want, because it is not our responsibility. But he is not one of theirs, so we have a duty to ensure that there is a fair trial and (if found guilty) a humane execution.

He will be hanged by Afghan officials. Like it or not in their eyes he's an American soldier not a drunk psychopath. Denouncing his citizinship of the US is a way out of this, both for Obama and Karzai

[Fragony]

I'd rather be hanged than the chair, gaschamber or injection by the way, just not Iranian style.

[rory_20_uk]

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

[Fragony]

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

Don't let the locals have him, turn him over to Afghan authority. Karzai needs to show that he's not a puppet and can actually make a fist, and Obama can get away with 'he really shouldn't have done that', few pics of the victims on TV et voila,

I just solved this crisis.

[Sarmatian]

Because they don't know the meaning of the word justice. We should try him here, assure that he gets a fair trial (which he definitely will not over there),

I don't know... Outcomes of trials where Americans judged Americans for murders of people of other nationalities usually ended with a slap on the wrist for the accused.

[Vuk]

Hanging if done by a trained professional is a pretty quick and painless way to go. If its screwed up then it is extremely unpleasant. Assuming the locals can screw even this up, why not firing squad? Get some of the relatives in on it to help them expunge the blood debt.

Because I know that if I were a relative, I would aim for the stomach or nads. You shouldn't have that much passion being involved with an execution.
Professional firing squad, aiming for the head would do just fine. Of all the ways one can be executed, I think I would find that the easiest and least humiliating.

[Vuk]

I don't know... Outcomes of trials where Americans judged Americans for murders of people of other nationalities usually ended with a slap on the wrist for the accused.

Depends, are the victims someone unimportant, or are they someone incredibly important like muslims? When they are muslims, and something like this that threatens an important diplomatic balance has happened, I think we can count on a just punishment if guilty.

[rory_20_uk]

Because I know that if I were a relative, I would aim for the stomach or nads. You shouldn't have that much passion being involved with an execution.
Professional firing squad, aiming for the head would do just fine. Of all the ways one can be executed, I think I would find that the easiest and least humiliating.

Fair point. But if you had 4 professionals, it would not really matter what the relatives did or didn't do. They'd still be nigh on instantly dead in a hail of bullets.

[Vuk]

Fair point. But if you had 4 professionals, it would not really matter what the relatives did or didn't do. They'd still be nigh on instantly dead in a hail of bullets.

But you could still have an instant or two too much or excruciating pain. We are not the Medieval Catholic Church, and we should not be torturing prisoners.
To quote my favorite game of all time:

Bullet to the head, now that's justice!

Anything else is revenge.

[rvg]

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions. If this happened in Germany, our soldier would still be 100% immune from German prosecution (at that point he'd wish he wasn't, but that's another story). That's the way we run things everywhere, not just in Afghanistan. If some country doesn't like that, it's their prerogative, that just means that we will not station our troops there (as was the case with Iraq last fall).

[Kikuchiyo]

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions. If this happened in Germany, our soldier would still be 100% immune from German prosecution (at that point he'd wish he wasn't, but that's another story). That's the way we run things everywhere, not just in Afghanistan. If some country doesn't like that, it's their prerogative, that just means that we will not station our troops there (as was the case with Iraq last fall).

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

[Fragony]

We have an agreement with Afghanistan as well as every other country hosting U.S. troops that explicitly states that our soldiers get tried by our military tribunal, not the local courts. No exceptions.

If I was a Afghan village chief in a remote village who thinks all soldiers are Russian, how would you explain that to me after this ( supposed) spree of uncalled viollence. Sorry have some goats? Tell me how you are not being just conquering the place exactly, and why said chief should see it any differently

[Vladimir]

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

Perhaps there is a term you are not familiar with: SOFA.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

Oh, it's fine as the new (puppet) government that was instated is as pleased as punch to have the opportunity to embezzle as much money as he and his extended clan can get away with whilst a war is fought over the barren wasteland that is his country.

If they say no, hit 'em and ask 'em again. Eventually you'll get the right answer.

[rvg]

I think that misses out the minor detail that Afghanistan and Iraq were actually invaded and did not exactly have a choice regarding the stationing of troops...

Iraq did have a choice, it expressed its choice, which is why we're out of there: they refused to extend the agreement. Same agreement is in place with Karzai.

If I was a Afghan village chief in a remote village who thinks all soldiers are Russian, how would you explain that to me after this ( supposed) spree of uncalled viollence. Sorry have some goats? Tell me how you are not being just conquering the place exactly, and why said chief should see it any differently

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Fragony]

[QUOTE=rvg;2053431081I'm not sure I understand your question.[/QUOTE]

What do you want from them, to suddenly leave everything to you? Trust your courts? You are a foreign invader, you expect grattitude because you mowed their lawn but it's still your boot that really affects them more directly

[Kikuchiyo]

Perhaps there is a term you are not familiar with: SOFA.

Yes... but if the countries were invaded in the first place, then how exactly is that worth the paper it's printed on?

Iraq did have a choice, it expressed its choice, which is why we're out of there: they refused to extend the agreement. Same agreement is in place with Karzai.

So now Iraq and Afghanistan chose to be invaded...?

[rvg]

What do you want from them, to suddenly leave everything to you? Trust your courts? You are a foreign invader, you expect grattitude because you mowed their lawn but it's still your boot that really affects them more directly

I don't really care what the average Nasratullah wants. Our government has an agreement with their government on how to handle these cases. Thus, the case will be handled according to the agreement. Public outcry over this while understandable is completely irrelevant.

[Kikuchiyo]

Our government has an agreement with their government

An agreement with a now infamous puppet regime and corrupt president - not an agreement with the Afghan people, the various tribes, etc...

[rvg]

So now Iraq and Afghanistan chose to be invaded...?

Did I say that?

An agreement with a now infamous puppet regime and corrupt president - not an agreement with the Afghan people, the various tribes, etc...

The "infamous puppet regime" is what the U.N. recognizes as a legitimate afghan government. They'll do.

[Kikuchiyo]

I see people talking about a signed agreement regarding the deployment of troops, etc... such an agreement would only be relevant if the US and it's allies were invited in, in the first place...

Or is this a debate where we just pretend the Karzai regime is legit and just take it from there...?