Robert Bales (l)
As a true blue law enforcement type, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what motivates someone to murder 17 people, as my recent posts on Mohamed Merah should illustrate. I believe in the death penalty and think it should be equally applied according to the circumstances. To me, 17 indiscriminate murders qualifies. I must confess that I do give pause to think about what might have happened to one of our soldiers fighting for us in a war zone especially one who had seen his buddies blown up. That brings me to Sgt Robert Bales, awaiting trial for murdering 17 innocent Afghan civilians, men, women and children.
One question begs; did he crack up? Are we dealing with a mentally-ill defendant? I have no idea. If this was a cold-blooded plot born simply of hate for the natives, similar to that of the Toulouse killer, I cannot in any way defend Bales or argue for clemency. Now, there is an indication that the killings may have occurred over two separate incidents. If so, that reinforces the idea of pre-meditation, which makes it worse. I will let the military court sort that out.
I do have one concern, however. This is much more than a murder case. This has implications for our mission in Afghanistan, foreign relations in general, and more specifically, our relations with the Muslim world. President Obama has apologized to the people of Afghanistan. President Karzai is demanding justice. Many in Afghanistan wanted Bales to be tried by an Afghan court. Now the whole world is watching to see how America will treat this case in a US Military court. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that if Bales is given anything less than the death penalty, riots in the Islamic world will ensue, and more people-and probably more Americans- will be killed.
Without trying to sound like some ACLU attorney, I hope that President Obama will resist the temptation to put improper pressure on his commanders to come up with the "right verdict" (guilty) and the" right sentence" (death)-even if Bales has gone off his rocker. That would be a perversion of American justice. I am not saying he will do that, but let's be honest. The practical thing to do here is hold a quick trial and pass a death sentence. If the facts show that such a sentence is appropriate, fine, but we cannot do it just for geo-political reasons, if in fact, this defendant is insane. However, we do have 17 victims, and justice must be done. The officers who will conduct this trial will be under a great challenge to achieve fair justice free from any political considerations.
6 comments:
You don't have to worry about Obama putting pressure on the court, his idiot Moonbat lawyer will get this guy killed.
This is going to be tried in a military court, not a civilian one. So what is this defense lawyer going to do? Put the war on trial instead. A sure fire way to get this poor shumck killed.
The only thing that bothers me about your discussion of this difficult situation is "if Bales is given anything less than the death penalty, riots in the Islamic world will ensue, and more people-and probably more Americans- will be killed."
The American course of justice should take place without concern about riots in the Islamic world. We should refuse to be intimidated about what the Muslim may do.. If they feel so outraged about what we determine is appropriate and they try to retaliate, then they will incur the same fate as the leadership of the Al Queda.
As the Good Book says, "Justice, justice shall you pursue." That means in this case and others as well you need evidence, witnesses, etc. That is all we should be concerned with, not with what the Muslims might do.
I'd rather they be concerned about what WE may do. I haven't forgotten all the innocent people on our side they have slaughtered.
Miggie,
You and I are not in disagreement here. I was merely pointing out what our leaders are probably thinking right now.
If any of your readers believe that we should take Muslim reactions into consideration as an element of our Justice system, they must believe that the way to deal with Muslims is to get wimpier. Bitter experience shows that doesn't work.
Islam is a grievance culture. There was a note perfect parody of the typical newspaper headline, "Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing."
We did not go into Afghanistan without reason. Among other things, the Taliban were giving safe haven to OBL and hosting terrorist training camps that trained Jihadists to attack targets in the West.
We completed the job of overthrowing the Taliban and it was Obama who declared that Afghanistan was the "right" war in his campaign. After he was elected it was escalated and perpetuated.
Wars are a series of atrocities and retaliations, both large and small. Whatever the case is with Bales, Muslim reactions should not be considered. Muslim extremists should be fearful of our retaliation. We have to take on their ideology and the networks that sustain them and destroy them, no matter the amount of rioting in Kabul and Teheran. Enduring their encroachments on the West defeats us, incident by incident. It is not just a bombing here and a beheading there.
Melani Phillips wrote something on this: "It is impossible to overstate the importance... of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual, and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa."
.
Miggie joins Michael Steele in saying that Afghanistan is "Obama's War," one that he "chose" to get into. Many Republicans were horrified.
Gary's analysis of this situation is sound. I also lean toward protecting the rights of the individual defendant, vs. throwing him to the wolves for geopolitical reasons. We must, however, recognize that many times in history, an individual WAS sacrificed, not without some justification at times, primarily for geopolitical reasons.
I think by this time most of us agree that we should have gone into Afghanistan for six months, kicked butt with OBL, then gotten out, leaving our gallant allies of the Northern Alliance to sort things out with what was left of the Taliban.
It has been a long time indeed since I was subject to the UCMJ. I admittedly have not looked it up, and I may be wrong but I suspect that a defense of insanity, or mental illness, or diminished capacity, or abuse, or too few (or maybe too many) red wagons as a child, or whatever, must be available to members of the military as well as civilians.
What I will find interesting as this develops is how many (and which) libs/Dems, who usually oppose the death penalty and who have no problem asserting such a defense for dirtbags whose worth, if they have any at all, is a tiny fraction of this sergeant's, will be squalling for his head if he asserts such.
Post a Comment