US soldier gets 100 years for rape, murder

Originally posted by zeeblebot
you probably wouldn't be so blase if that 32% was a drop in your retirement portfolio.

It would be interesting to know what the 32% who returned to prison were returned to prison for. Does this include, for example, trivial parole violations? When released on parole you are still serving your sentence and, at least in the UK, if you don't turn up at the police station to sign the book when you are meant to then they can return you to prison - once you have been sentenced then whether you are inside or out during the term of your sentence is an administrative decision, it doesn't take a judge to put you back. Also, if you have been convicted of a violent offence in the past and reoffended then, at least I'd assume, that you would be more likely to get a custodial sentence than had you not been guilty of a violent crime in the past. So it would be interesting to see what the reason for the return to prison actually was.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
you probably wouldn't be so blase if that 32% was a drop in your retirement portfolio.

Don't you morons ever tire of these off-topic attempts at personal attacks?

Originally posted by jakejjk
The accusation is that they planned the rape and murder beforehand. Do you think he was planning on raping the girl and then letting her and her family go?

He should die.

He will, as we all will.

Whatever was planned, the simple fact remains that this person didn't actually kill anybody nor was he in a position of authority such that he compelled anyone else to kill anybody. Thus, the death penalty is a disproportionate penalty for what he did.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thus, the death penalty is a disproportionate penalty for what he did.

As is the possibility for parole.

From what I read, ("Sergeant Paul Cortez, 24, admitted he was among five soldiers who plotted the March 2006 rape and murders"...) the group conspired as one to commit these acts (rape and murder.) To me, who pulled the trigger is as insignificant as who raped her first.

Originally posted by SJ247
As is the possibility for parole.

From what I read, ("Sergeant Paul Cortez, 24, admitted he was among five soldiers who plotted the March 2006 rape and murders"...) the group conspired as one to commit these acts (rape and murder.) To me, who pulled the trigger is as insignificant as who raped her first.

Maybe he went along because he was afraid of getting shot in the back during a firefight by the others.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe he went along because he was afraid of getting shot in the back during a firefight by the others.

There are always "maybe's", but none were mentioned in the article.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe he went along because he was afraid of getting shot in the back during a firefight by the others.

No, that's not the psychology. This isn't the first set of these problematic behaviours (apologies for the understatement) to come to light in Iraq. The Abu Graib scandal, where Spc Lynndie England seemed to take the brunt of the blame largely for being a woman (she did what she did but so did a lot of other people), was about a bunch of people who were totally freaked out. There is no doubt that they committed atrocities, but the atrocities they committed are also the responsibility of their commanders for not maintaining discipline and, frankly, for putting them there in the first place. No soldier's has ever made a legal or illegal killing without first being deployed (well ok, but you know what I'm saying).

These people deserve severe sentences for what they have done. They are not the initiators of what happenned, that responsibility lies with GW Bush and T Blair.

Originally posted by SJ247
As is the possibility for parole.

From what I read, ("Sergeant Paul Cortez, 24, admitted he was among five soldiers who plotted the March 2006 rape and murders"...) the group conspired as one to commit these acts (rape and murder.) To me, who pulled the trigger is as insignificant as who raped her first.

If one of the soldiers didn't rape the girl, should he still get the penalty for rape? Conspiracy to commit a crime is punished as a lesser grade then actually doing the object crime. In this case, he pled to conspiracy to rape and murder and got a 100 year sentence based on an agreement OK'ed by the commanding general of his division. I don't feel that such a sentence is a light one; it's possible he may never be released - parole is discretionary.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Don't you morons ever tire of these off-topic attempts at personal attacks?

wow, i bet you felt that one. 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought
It would be interesting to know what the 32% who returned to prison were returned to prison for. Does this include, for example, trivial parole violations? When released on parole you are still serving your sentence and, at least in the UK, if you don't turn up at the police station to sign the book when you are meant to then they can return you to pr st. So it would be interesting to see what the reason for the return to prison actually was.

No post, was trying to make a minor edit -I had clicked on edit which disappeared in the time it took me to make the post, and ended up making a new post somehow...

The intended edit was to replace "reoffended" with "reoffended non-violently" to distinguish the two possible cases.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There were two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in the Second World War, not one. They had already tested the implosion bomb and knew it's capabilities. They were sufficiently sure that the gun type bomb used on Hiroshima would work that they didn't test it, but knew what such weapons could do from the Trinity test and on theoretical grounds. The bombs w ...[text shortened]... It's a rather different matter with the British and US forces over the last sixty years.

1. Yes, there were 2 bombs
2. The bombs which caused firestorms were the incendiary bombs used on Tokyo and other cites. The a-bombs were detonated at altitude to maximize blast effects.
3.The Geneva Convention dealing with protection of civilians was convened in 1949, after the war, as a result of the high civilian casualties in ww2 (about 40 milloin civilians vs. 20 million military), so did not cover bombing of cities in ww2 which was done by all major participants.
4. The blitz was started by thr British??????
5. I never said any country was not guilty of war crimes, in fact I think if you scrutinize any war, both sides would likely be guilty. It's really a matter of degree. The behavior of the Japanese military from 1933 in Manchuria, Indonesia, SE Asia, the Phillipines, with, executions torture, slave labor, medical experiments etc was truly heinous, making the Allies look awfully good by comparison.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
wow, i bet you felt that one. 🙂

It was childish and off-topic like most of your posts. I've heard much better lawyer jokes and comments than the pathetic collection of sub-morons like you, jammer and the rest on this site can come up with from the average third grader.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It was childish and off-topic like most of your posts. I've heard much better lawyer jokes and comments than the pathetic collection of sub-morons like you, jammer and the rest on this site can come up with from the average third grader.

how come you're squealing so loud, then?

(and it wasn't a lawyer joke ... it was a no1m joke ...)

Originally posted by SJ247
There are always "maybe's", but none were mentioned in the article.

What was mentioned in the article is that some of them raped and murdered and some didn't. Right?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
how come you're squealing so loud, then?

(and it wasn't a lawyer joke ... it was a no1m joke ...)

It wasn't a joke at all - those are funny or at least mildly amusing. It was just another pathetic attempt by a nitwit to be clever and it dismally failed.