Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jude]

Well if he's Muslim you point to the extremism.  If he's some less stigmatized religion you point to the mental illness.  Unless you're his defense lawyer, then you always point to the latter.  Of course this pertains specifically to the US.  Ok, now that we've gotten that bullshit out of the way...

But it doesn't have to be an extremist of  religion. What if I'm a wackjob and am also obsessed with violent anarchism? When I blow up a bus, which one do you blame?

[Strife26]

Being a traitor is worse than killing soldiers. If I ever go to war, I won't bear much personal stigma against the poor bastards I'll be machine-gunning, but I'd shoot a traitor in the leg with a pistol before I went for center-mass.


And while the bastard still gets his normal rights (note that he'll be tried under the UCMJ, not normal law), it's pretty clear that he is in fact an Islamist Extremist.


A mentally ill terrorist eh? I don't particularly care (of course our capitalistic media will be printing what sells), of course I'd expect the sentence to be carried out either way,

[Duke 2.0]

But it doesn't have to be an extremist of  religion. What if I'm a wackjob and am also obsessed with violent anarchism? When I blow up a bus, which one do you blame?

This is both an odd choice of wording and completely expected.

[Earthquake Damage]

Being a traitor is worse than killing soldiers. If I ever go to war, I won't bear much personal stigma against the poor bastards I'll be machine-gunning, but I'd shoot a traitor in the leg with a pistol before I went for center-mass.

Wasn't the comparison earlier between killing innocents and treason?

[Jude]

Being a traitor is worse than killing soldiers. If I ever go to war, I won't bear much personal stigma against the poor bastards I'll be machine-gunning, but I'd shoot a traitor in the leg with a pistol before I went for center-mass.

Aaaaaaaaand the wacko faction has spoken

me, I'd be more concerned with someone who kills people than somebody whose loyalty to a piece of land within imaginary lines is less than mine

Not that I have any loyalty to said piece of land, namely because the lines are imaginary and the people on the other side of them aren't any different because of it

And while the bastard still gets his normal rights (note that he'll be tried under the UCMJ, not normal law), it's pretty clear that he is in fact an Islamist Extremist.

OK that doesn't change the fact that you insisted he was when you had no evidence for thinking so...that's the point I was making

A mentally ill terrorist eh? I don't particularly care (of course our capitalistic media will be printing what sells), of course I'd expect the sentence to be carried out either way,

Well, if he WERE certifiably mentally ill (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) that would be grounds for leniency or even commuting a sentence to commiting him to an institution

This is both an odd choice of wording and completely expected.

Not sure what that means, but if I blow up any buses you get to say "I told you so"

[cowofdoom78963]

I'd be more concerned with someone who kills people than somebody whose loyalty to a piece of land within imaginary lines is less than mine

Well said old bean!

[Strife26]

Being a soldier is perfectly acceptable. I don't have much of a problem personally against the Wehrmacht, but that doesn't mean I won't fight. However, when you break the rules of war (and treason while in uniform break a lot of them) that gets to be blood feud territory.

Call me a wacko if you wish, but that's that.

There's a difference between not believing in something and betraying it. If the bastard wasn't willing to be in the Army, he shouldn't of been in the bloody Army. There might be some level of forgivness if America drafted people, but this is an all volunteer force.


Didn't listen to much news coverage did you? My condemnation came after NPR, clearly reported that he had made repeated pro-bomber online posts, was involved with a hyper-radical Imam (who was the Imam of a few of the 9/11 pilots), and had recently presented a speach saying that Muslim soldiers should react violently to orders. While CNN, Fox, and NBC were all reporting similar things. I was sitting in a hotel room at the time, watching TV and eating General Tso's Chicken. So, I had evidence that he was a Islamist Traitor.


I've none gone for the "I'm crazy" defense. Throw him in a slightly nicer prison and let him out after a couple of decades. Being crazy doesn't bring lives back, and if the voices made you do it, you're clearly a threat to society.



As for Duke calling it expected, you're Jude and I'm Strife. Our butting heads and you calling me a whacko is pretty much normal.


To Cow:
There's a difference between disagreeing with something and betraying it. If Hasan wasn't willing to fight, he shouldn't have been in the Army. If you really don't want anything to do with America, it's not that tough to leave. It's a far cry between emigration and shooting up Ft Hood.
I'm not going to hate one for being less loyal than I am, but I'm damn well going to hate you if you try to hurt America while being a soldier and citizen.

[Servant Corps]

Cribbed from Wikipedia on False flag operations:

The outcome of the trial has been codified in the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I):

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy

    1. It is prohibited to kill, injure, or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
    (a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
    (b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
    (c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
    (d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
    2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Article 38.-Recognized emblems

    1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
    2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.

Article 39.-Emblems of nationality

    1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
    2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
    3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.

You can't fight for a foreign army and wear your opponents uniform. Technically, what Nidal did was more of straight up treason.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the International Law in question, but my understanding of this treaty is that when attacking the enemy, you can't wear the uniform of:

a) a Third-Party country to the conflict
b) the Red Cross
c) United Nations
d) a civilian

Nothing in the law actually states that you can't wear the same uniform of the enemy itself. I think that wearing the uniform of the enemy in order to sneak inside a military base would count as a "ruse of war", if one wants to interpret it broadly...or possibly "espionage". I'd defend calling it a "ruse of war" since wearing the uniform of the military that you are attacking would cause the enemy to act recklessly (by trusting you), rather than say, "perfidy" because the enemy is not attacking you because you aren't a protected class.

I'm not worried about charges of treason, since that's merely national law, but...treason, according to the US Consitution is "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort." It can't be "adhering to the enemy", since there is no evidence he ever joined with Al-Qaeda (and you have to claim that Al-Qaeda's declaration of war back in the 1990's was valid). The second case seems even harder to prove: You have to make the case that one person could wage war against the United States, and he hasn't even released any declaration of war yet. He has a lawyer though, so maybe he'll release some statement later stating if he declared war or if was mentally insane, or if he was blowing off steam, or whatever.

EDIT:

Before the end of WWII, invading another country was completely legally acceptable and war was pretty much free of most rules.

Wrong. Both Japan and Italy got a lot of flack for invading Manchuria and Ethopia, respectively. And war itself was outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1929, which was signed by Japan, Germany, and Italy.

[Jude]

Being a soldier is perfectly acceptable. I don't have much of a problem
There's a difference between not believing in something and betraying it. If the bastard wasn't willing to be in the Army, he shouldn't of been in the bloody Army. There might be some level of forgivness if America drafted people, but this is an all volunteer force.

That's a point, but the idea of "treason" in general certainly isn't confined to the armed forces. Just by virtue of being a US citizen, if I would do something anti-American it becomes treason as opposed to just voicing a political opinion or taking sides in a conflict. Which is dumb. I'm only American because I happened to have been born here. I could have been born 200 miles north and been Canadian, or history could have been different and I could have been born Swiss.

Of course, anybody dumb enough to sign ownership of their life over to the military is asking for it anyway and I guess mutiny or attacking your own comrades counts as breaking your word, which I do consider a huge offense, so it works out in that sense

Didn't listen to much news coverage did you? My condemnation came after NPR, clearly reported that he had made repeated pro-bomber online posts, was involved with a hyper-radical Imam (who was the Imam of a few of the 9/11 pilots), and had recently presented a speach saying that Muslim soldiers should react violently to orders. While CNN, Fox, and NBC were all reporting similar things. I was sitting in a hotel room at the time, watching TV and eating General Tso's Chicken. So, I had evidence that he was a Islamist Traitor.

Well, I remember hearing breaking reports on NPR that he was corresponding with that guy, like 2 days after you made that original post, but whatever

I've none gone for the "I'm crazy" defense. Throw him in a slightly nicer prison and let him out after a couple of decades. Being crazy doesn't bring lives back, and if the voices made you do it, you're clearly a threat to society.

Well if somebody is genuinely judged to be insane, that lessens the guilt on their part since responsibility is for actions is judged with an assumption of rationality that doesn't apply to the severely mentally ill. Also, mental institutions aren't really a nicer place to be than jails; you're still confined either way. And if somebody's considered to be a threat to society they won't be released no matter if they're in jail or in a psych ward.

[Strife26]

It's 39-2 that specifically goes against wearing enemy uniforms.

    "2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations."


One could argue whether or not Hasan's action fit into treason (and treason is the only crime spelled out in the constitution, so it's the same in the Code as well), I'd argue that it qualifies as waging war, but in any case, he's a dead man if convicted (by a court martial remember, which has different rules).

I'm going off of http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47_40_X.html.

From my count, he has 15 crimes that can carry death, 13 of which can also be a required life sentence, and one crime worth anything short of death.

1) Assault of a superior officer (can carry death or whatever the CM decides in a time of war
1) Mutiny and/or Sedition (can carry death if the CM decides)

13 counts of murder. If he's found to "has a premeditated design to kill" then the court can ONLY imprison him for life or execute him.

1) Murder of a unborn child (one of the Privates he killed was pregnant) which carries a murder charge but cannot result in a death penalty.

He's looking at 15 executions or 16 life sentences.



Treason is specificly defined by the Constitution as being from someone who owes allegiance to the country. I'm fairly sure that one can forsake your citizenship.

[Duke 2.0]

 To clarify my post: The wording Jude used suggested he would bomb somebody someday, and I made the comment that it sounds completely in character of him.

[Strife26]

It does, just like it sounds completely normal that I'm going to shoot someone someday, or stab them repeatedly with a knife (speaking of which, I've decided to use the money I'm saving on a class ring for the down payment on a custom combat knife!).

The KB pact is fun, but it was majorly flawed in the fact that it lacked any enforcement, which is where I see the real reason America needs to remain a superpower, all laws must be backed by force in the end.

[Qmarx]

Lets remember that he was chanting Allahu Akbar the whole time.

which is something that 1/6 of the earth's population does on a daily basis ooooooo fanaticism

They kill people while chanting "Allahu Akbar"?

What a strange world you live in.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Lets remember that he was chanting Allahu Akbar the whole time.

which is something that 1/6 of the earth's population does on a daily basis ooooooo fanaticism

They kill people while chanting "Allahu Akbar"?

What a strange world you live in.

Did anyone you're quoting say that?  No.

To clarify my mental illness comment.  People willing to commit terrorist acts are already mentally ill.  Anyone who thinks it's worth murdering a whole bunch of innocent people to cause terror is being totally irrational.  Frankly, Strife sounds exactly like the kind of nuts we should lock up and keep out of the military at any cost, because they're bound to start shooting up civilians and giving the psychos who want to kill us more recruits.  The gun removed any pretense of honor from war.  One person can kill another, simply with a flick of the finger. There's no contest, it's just kill or be killed.

[sneakey pete]

There was never any honor and the gun didn't change that one bit mate.