http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun20.html

While original reports through TV and other made me originally say "Guilty", after reading this article I am having some doubts that they caught the correct man, or that it is possible that more than one person had been involved as there are just some things that do not add up.

1. No one can place him at the scene and no one can prove the allegations of theft of the materials from the Humvee.
2. Hansen pointed out that two different soldiers testified they told investigators that Akbar was not the man they saw shoot Seifert. One witness said he saw a second shot fired that he thought came from a second shooter.
3. The probe was tainted when Col. Ben Hodges, the brigade commander, told the arriving investigator that a soldier had confessed to the crime because he said American soldiers were going to rape and kill Muslims in Iraq.

I am defiantly currently not going to be quick to give guilty verdict until more facts have been presented. Currently smells of scapegoat!!!

A Penny for your thoughts!!!!

I'm waiting for further investigation results. It's not wise to judge when you do not have proper information. And I do not consider a newspaper article in pre-court state proper information.

There is however one thought I can share:

He selected the weapons, he pulled the pins, he threw the grenades and he
shot Maj. (Kenneth) Romaine with his rifle," Cook said.

Whether this soldier is guilty or not this is a statement I disapprove of.
Not only is he making assumptions without evidence. He rhetorically tries to proof something he does not know by describing in detail what he has not seen!

Just because he is convinced does not mean he has to convince others. Let the courts find out.

He admitted to his guards that he did it. So they should put him in a concrete room and start tossing in grenades. After several minutes check and see if he is dead. Continue if by some chance he still clings to life. Then leave his body out for the dogs to eat.

People are fat in admitting something to "their guards" or "their friends" or "the investigating officer" or ...
I wait until he admits in court or is convicted in court. That's the way the legal system works and for a good reason that is.
After that I totally agree on proper punishment (i.e. life sentence IMHO)

Gosh, That sounds like something that Osama bin laden would do or approve of.

Also, I may point out that's it's a very narrow view, very narrow indeed. It speaks of lack of empathy and understanding on many issues.

First of all, just because someone claims to have done something, It doesn't mean that they have automatically done it.
(Strange though that may sound)
This is why we have a legal system, so that we can attempt (for is justice not blind?) to uncloud the bathroom mirror of truth and take the decesion that is in the context of the people legislateing and presideing over the system, fair (what they see as fair, since there is no abstract "justice" we can all gaze at in wonderment)

What you suggest is punishment via power, And punishment via power is useually the area of places like China or the soviet union, since they had very little acutal legal or judicial system.
instead, they just hold you forever or killed you like that!

Secondly, The American constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishments.
Do you want them to poop all over the American constitution?

I say let him die the same way his victims did.

How do you know he killed them?
It’s a fundamental fact that just because someone says they did something, it doesn’t always mean that they have.
For example: Lying.

And would you really wish to destroy and damage the legal system and poop all over the constitution?
Since the constitution does forbid cruel and unusual punishment I must remind you.

<font color=orange>I'll wait til after the Courts-martial. They will be fair in deciding guilt or innocence and in administoring punishment if it is warrented. </font>

It' so nice to see American's so willing to crap all over the Consitution and Bill of Rights. You would feel more at home in China or Cuba I think khaz.

<font color=orange>Actually, when you join the military, you give up a lot of those rights guranteed in the Bill of rights and the Constitution.</font>

Actuall , no. The UCMJ, while a much more rigid legal system than those of the rest of the nation and states, still adheres to the Constitution. Officers and NCOs can get into trouble for issuing orders that violate a troop's basic rights.

it amazes me how many americans are so overly partriotic and are so quick to push their democracy on the rest of the world, they cry out for human rights, freedom of speech and tell the rest of the world how wonderful their constitution is but can still make comments such as this?

What rights does one give up or not give up in the military?
Doesn't the military protect the rights of the people of the nation? And they being people of the nation, how could they lose their rights?


Felix

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Felix, you give up the right to some basic freedoms and the right to run away from danger. You give up your freedom of speech and may be told what you may or may not discuss and with whom, you give up freedom of association and may be forced to live with and work with people you do not like or respect, you gain the luxury of being ordered to possibly get killed, you gain the freedom tobe ordered to work 80 hour weeks and to go for long periods with no sleep. You may be ordered to receive experimental vacciens, all in all you give up quite a lot to serve your country.

As for that....shouldn't someone lock this thread?
</font>

Well let's hope the trial is not tainted. If convicted, I think the article said he could face the death penalty. Is that not the military way, "eye for eye" "death for death"?
From the article, being written from a journalist that is. It is really hard to tell if all of the facts lead to guilty. Especially when a part of the report is talking about a potential second shooter. Who and where is this guy? I would imagine a grenade makes a lot of noise, how could just one person throw what was it three? grenades at differnt locations and not be apprehended quickly? And shoot his weapon also, I would think somebody somewhere should have seen or heard something.

Felix

<font color=orange>It'd be easy to throw three grenades and then fire off your weapon. Probably most of the camp rushed to defend the perimeter, not realizing the attack came from within. Grenades don't go off when you pull the pin. They only go off when you release the spoon. Once you release the spoon you have about 10 seconds to throw it. The kill radius on a grenade is about 25 meters (if I remember correctly). I figure you could throw three accurately, in about 15 seconds. Then watch for movement and shoot whatever moved. Remember the attack happened in the middle of the night. I'm sure confusion reigned for several minutes.

BTW, the death penalty is handed down far less in the military than in the civilian world in the US. Before the Gulf War, I was stationed at Ft. Bragg prior to going to Saudia Arabia. A reservist was stomped to death by three members of the 10th Mountain Division (they were on a training mission) on a parade ground not far from our barracks. Fortunatly the caught the scumbags. For that, the scumbag leader was given Life at Hard Labor and the others received 30 years at Hard Labor. It was our opinion that they should have all got the death penalty.
</font>