Death penalty urged for soldiers accused of murder in Iraq

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Death penalty urged for soldiers accused of murder in Iraq

PHOENIX (AP) — An Army investigator has recommended that four soldiers accused of murder in a raid in Iraq should face the death penalty, according to a report obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.
Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. concluded that the slayings were premeditated and warranted the death sentence based on evidence he heard at an August hearing. The case will now be forwarded to Army officials, who will decide whether Daniel's recommendation should be followed.

The soldiers, all from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division's 187th Infantry Regiment, are accused of killing three Iraqi men taken from a house May 9 on a marshy island outside Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber have claimed they were ordered to "kill all military age males" during the raid on the island. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told the target was an al-Qaeda training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men, who were being handcuffed, and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face, and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

Prosecutors argue the soldiers conspired to kill the men and then altered the scene to fit their story. They contend Girouard stabbed Hunsaker as part of the killing plot.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also are accused of threatening to kill another soldier who witnessed the slayings. Girouard, the most senior soldier charged, faces several additional charges, including sexual harassment and carrying a personal weapon on duty.

Paul Bergrin, Clagett's civilian attorney, said he was surprised that Daniel recommended the case be taken to trial at all.

"I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened," Bergrin said Saturday. "They are being used as pawns in the war on terror. They followed the rules of engagement. They were confronted with violence by a known al-Qaeda training camp member."

Other lawyers in the case, several of whom are deployed to Iraq, did not immediately respond to e-mail requests for comment.

The soldiers are expected to be tried at Fort Campbell. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their arrests this year.

The U.S. military has not executed a soldier since the 1960 hanging of a soldier convicted rape and attempted murder.


I'm going to wait to decide until more info comes out.

[??????????]

Option 2.

[ATFFL]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

[TomC]

No, they should not get the death penalty; yes, I think the allegations are probably true, but at this point I have reasonable doubt.

Anyone seen A Few Good Men?

[??????????]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

If the allegations are true and they are found guilty they should be executed, however, I personally do NOT believe the allegations with the information I have currently.

[jerusalemcar5]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

If the allegations are true and they are found guilty they should be executed, however, I personally do NOT believe the allegations with the information I have currently.

Thanks for clearing the up, because I read that as you believing they should get the death penality for doing nothing.

Anyways, option 3 for me.

[Tender Branson]

Option 3 and:

In every war there are some soldiers who get psycho and kill some civilians, especially when they are under constant stress. Therefore these allagations can definitely be true, because out of 130.000 soldiers in Iraq there are for sure some killers. Why should it be different in Iraq than back home in the US ? They are killing people in the US too, so why not in Iraq ?

[Middle-aged Europe]

No/Yes

[minionofmidas]

Anyone seen A Few Good Men?

Yes, despite not being all that great a movie.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

If the allegations are true and they are found guilty they should be executed, however, I personally do NOT believe the allegations with the information I have currently.

The 2 questions are meant to be tied together--I doubted anybody would chose option 2 (I almost didn't put it on)--if you mean that if the allegations are true, they should die, but you don't think they are true, the option I intended you to vote is no/no.

[??????????]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

If the allegations are true and they are found guilty they should be executed, however, I personally do NOT believe the allegations with the information I have currently.

The 2 questions are meant to be tied together--I doubted anybody would chose option 2 (I almost didn't put it on)--if you mean that if the allegations are true, they should die, but you don't think they are true, the option I intended you to vote is no/no.

Um, what? If they are guilty of their crimes they should get the death penalty.

[Citizen James]

Option 1*

I have little evidence beyond the accusation, so I am not qualified to be judge and jury - however these sort of disgusting crimes do sadly occur at times (especially in times of war - but not exclusively), so I think it is realistic that they may be guilty.

However, if they are proven guilty through due process,  Premeditated murder, including the premeditated rape and murder of a child, count as expecially henious special circumstances and are fitting for the death penalty.

[John Dibble]

If they're guilty, they should be punished to whatever extent the law requires. If that's the death penalty, so be it - don't treat them special. As far as the allegations being true or not, I haven't got enough knowledge on the subject to give you a yes or no.

[AN Y]

Soldiers are paid to murder. It's their job. Why punish someone for doing what they are hired to do? Do nations punish their soldiers for killing enemy soldiers?

Of course, civilians are different from enemy soldiers, and an army requires discipline. In a war, however, that can always be explained away with "collateral damage", and sometimes the difference between civilian and soldier is very vague indeed (as happens in guerilla warfare). Besides, the logic of killing someone for killing another person when he/she is supposed to kill other people is very interesting.

[??????????]

Soldiers are paid to murder.

Not true. Soldiers are paid to kill to defend their respective nation. Murder would mean they are killing in cold blood for no reason. Their IS a very good reason why soldiers kill in war and yes, their is a difference in the terms.

[Speed of Sound]

Option 3. I wont ever support the death penalty, and this case is no different. I do however believe they should be harshly punished for thier actions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 2.

I am going to assume you mean they should get the death penalty if they are true, which you do not believe, right?

If the allegations are true and they are found guilty they should be executed, however, I personally do NOT believe the allegations with the information I have currently.

The 2 questions are meant to be tied together--I doubted anybody would chose option 2 (I almost didn't put it on)--if you mean that if the allegations are true, they should die, but you don't think they are true, the option I intended you to vote is no/no.

Um, what? If they are guilty of their crimes they should get the death penalty.

You are to answer Question 1 assuming that your answer to question 2 is correct.

[AN Y]

Not true. Soldiers are paid to kill to defend their respective nation. Murder would mean they are killing in cold blood for no reason. There IS a very good reason why soldiers kill in war and yes, there is a difference in the terms.

Murder is killing with malice aforethought. However, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, inadvertently killing another person in the course of committing a murder is also counted as murder, as, even though the murderer did not intend to kill said victim with malice, the murderer did intend to inflict bodily harm. I wonder if soldiers could be said to have malice aforethought, since they do intend to kill enemy soldiers?

[opebo]

Of course we need not execute anyone, but life imprisonment for these offenders would be useful, and they probably did it.  However poors such as this should not be held fully accountable - while they should be imprisoned for our safety, their Commander in Chief should also be tried for these killings, as he is actually responsible.

[??????????]

Not true. Soldiers are paid to kill to defend their respective nation. Murder would mean they are killing in cold blood for no reason. There IS a very good reason why soldiers kill in war and yes, there is a difference in the terms.

Murder is killing with malice aforethought. However, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, inadvertently killing another person in the course of committing a murder is also counted as murder, as, even though the murderer did not intend to kill said victim with malice, the murderer did intend to inflict bodily harm. I wonder if soldiers could be said to have malice aforethought, since they do intend to kill enemy soldiers?

That still doesn't prove your outlandish statment that, "soldiers are paid to murder".

[Frodo]

No, they should not get the death penalty even if the allegations are proven. 

And to answer the second question, I will answer in the negative until proven otherwise -I assume innocence until guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[AN Y]

Not true. Soldiers are paid to kill to defend their respective nation. Murder would mean they are killing in cold blood for no reason. There IS a very good reason why soldiers kill in war and yes, there is a difference in the terms.

Murder is killing with malice aforethought. However, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, inadvertently killing another person in the course of committing a murder is also counted as murder, as, even though the murderer did not intend to kill said victim with malice, the murderer did intend to inflict bodily harm. I wonder if soldiers could be said to have malice aforethought, since they do intend to kill enemy soldiers?

That still doesn't prove your outlandish statment that, "soldiers are paid to murder".

Again, consider the definition: an act of killing is murder if the perpetrator intends to inflict bodily harm, even if the intent is not directed toward the eventual victim of the murder. If your assertion that soldiers fight to defend their country is correct, and the process of fighting to defend their country involves killing enemies, the soldiers would be obliged to kill their enemies in order to fulfill their purpose, i.e. defending their country. The soldiers therefore have an intent to kill. By the above definition of murder, soldiers would then be considered murderers, because they do intend to inflict bodily harm upon their enemies. Many an American soldier, I think, would have gladly put a bullet in Iraqi insurgents.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Traditionally (well... 17th/18th century or so anyway...) murder was defined as killing with malice aforethought in peacetime. War was always considered a (very) different matter.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not true. Soldiers are paid to kill to defend their respective nation. Murder would mean they are killing in cold blood for no reason. There IS a very good reason why soldiers kill in war and yes, there is a difference in the terms.

Murder is killing with malice aforethought. However, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, inadvertently killing another person in the course of committing a murder is also counted as murder, as, even though the murderer did not intend to kill said victim with malice, the murderer did intend to inflict bodily harm. I wonder if soldiers could be said to have malice aforethought, since they do intend to kill enemy soldiers?

That still doesn't prove your outlandish statment that, "soldiers are paid to murder".

Just to let you know, I was intending you to answer question 1 assuming your answer for question 2 was correct.

[??????????]

Traditionally (well... 17th/18th century or so anyway...) murder was defined as killing with malice aforethought in peacetime. War was always considered a (very) different matter.

Every Catholic priest I grew up around and when this issue was discussed agreed with your above statement.