http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/15/americas-war-in-afghanistan
I recently read a report that after interviewing survivors, they used the plural of solider, suggesting he may not have acted alone. I can't find that particular article again, so I'm not sure of it's validity. It could have simply been a misunderstanding due to the language barrier, but regardless of how many were involved, it's despicable. More than one solider partaking would be a bigger P.R. nightmare though.
It would appear he possibly shouldn't have been on active service due to previous head injuries. How a sane person can line up 9 kids and shoot them in the head is beyond understanding.
There was a good segment on Newsnight about this that showed a meeting with President Karzai and the Tribal Elders of the area where the event happened. The Elders were adamant that it was multiple soldiers not a single individual that took part in these actions due to the statements of the villagers who witnessed the events. The most troubling part is if the opinion is made on the Afghan side that it was multiple perpetrators it will not matter if the Americans throw a single soldier to the sword as they will just make the decision that the Americans are liars therefore compounding the problems further that the States have been having in the region.
This is the episode and the segment starts around 16:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dk3th/Newsnight_16_03_2012/
Quote from: Crow on March 17, 2012, 10:57:16 PM
There was a good segment on Newsnight about this that showed a meeting with President Karzai and the Tribal Elders of the area where the event happened. The Elders were adamant that it was multiple soldiers not a single individual that took part in these actions due to the statements of the villagers who witnessed the events. The most troubling part is if the opinion is made on the Afghan side that it was multiple perpetrators it will not matter if the Americans throw a single soldier to the sword as they will just make the decision that the Americans are liars therefore compounding the problems further that the States have been having in the region.
This is the episode and the segment starts around 16:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dk3th/Newsnight_16_03_2012/
I can't view the video you linked too. It says it can only be viewed by those located in the U.K.
So sad and awful. I don't know if this guy (or guys if there were more than one) would be considered "insane" though. I mean yes, they were, but I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that. :'(
Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. I don't know much about the events. Were they at night? How many actual witnesses were there? Perhaps one person actually lived to see what happened, and told others who claim to be witnesses? It can be dangerous to trust witnesses. The US military would have nothing to gain and much to lose in purposely covering up the involvement of multiple perpetrators. I'm not saying it wasn't more than one, as I don't know. I'm just saying if it was, I think the military would be stupid to try to cover it up.
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:15:40 PM
I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that. :'(
From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.
Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?
Let's look at the opposite end of the scale: A mass murderer or rapist arrives at the emergency room with accute injuries. The dotors and nurses are then expected to hang their feelings on a peg and do their job to the best of their abilities. Is it too much to expext the same of the soldiers?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 19, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:15:40 PM
I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that. :'(
From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.
Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?
I think some people get caught up in this idea of the "glory" and "honor" of "protecting their country" without really honestly evaluating what it would really be like. And how could they? I would guess that mpost have never been in the kind of "life or death" situation that they face in active combat. Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18. I know what I was like when I was 20.....
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 04:49:49 PM
Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18. I know what I was like when I was 20.....
At 18, I've seen enough crappy war movies to know that soldiers kill. It's what they are trained for and it's what they do and do well if they are any good at the craft.
How can you take a job - any job - without asking yourself what it would mean for you?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 19, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:15:40 PM
I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that. :'(
From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.
Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?
I disagree with this assertion simply because I don't think personal moral codes are always so narrow. I think it is certainly possible to get paid to kill while still upholding a certain moral character. I view it as a private hitman who may refuse to accept jobs where the target is a child. If this individual inadvertently killed a child while carrying out their job, I can see how it could effect their psyche.
I don't typically defend soldiers, but I'm sure there are some who think they are doing the world a service, and try to limit their bullets to those holding weapons. When they are inadvertently responsible for an innocent's death, they may very well experience psychological problems.
This isn't a defense of anything, nor do I think this guy should get less of a sentence on the insanity plea, but just something I thought about.
I do think many are simply killers who enjoy killing though. I also think they view civilians and combatants as equal, hence the abundance of sexual crimes during invasions.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 19, 2012, 04:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 04:49:49 PM
Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18. I know what I was like when I was 20.....
At 18, I've seen enough crappy war movies to know that soldiers kill. It's what they are trained for and it's what they do and do well if they are any good at the craft.
How can you take a job - any job - without asking yourself what it would mean for you?
I just think that sometimes it's hard to know how you will react in a given situation until you are actually there. I think I know myself pretty well, but I still manage to surprise myself sometimes, and I'm not typically involved in really high stakes high drama scenarios where you have to rely more on your gut insticts and spur of the moment decisions.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 19, 2012, 05:02:30 PM
I disagree with this assertion simply because I don't think personal moral codes are always so narrow. I think it is certainly possible to get paid to kill while still upholding a certain moral character. I view it as a private hitman who may refuse to accept jobs where the target is a child. If this individual inadvertently killed a child while carrying out their job, I can see how it could effect their psyche.
I don't see how this is contrary to what I said. If you can not eliminate your intended targets - and only your intended targets - without hesitation or mental breakdowns while seeing them as human beings not unlike yourself, why would you even want to be a career killer? Or, if you are just a cold-hearted sadist, why would such a career (Mafia hitman and the like excepted) want you?
Collateral damage happens, but that is not what I am talking about here. I'm sure some can shrug it off, others can think it away and others still are traumatised by it, but the word "collateral" implies destruction of unintended targets.
Quote
I do think many are simply killers who enjoy killing though. I also think they view civilians and combatants as equal, hence the abundance of sexual crimes during invasions.
Of course. Such jobs are probably very attractive to the adrenalin junkies with a sadistic streak, but one can fire their asses if and when one sees signs of trouble, no?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 19, 2012, 05:18:18 PM
I don't see how this is contrary to what I said. If you can not eliminate your intended targets - and only your intended targets - without hesitation or mental breakdowns while seeing them as human beings not unlike yourself, why would you even want to be a career killer? Or, if you are just a cold-hearted sadist, why would such a career (Mafia hitman and the like excepted) want you?
I agree it should be predicted you will be responsible for the death's of innocents or be placed in situations they require tough moral decisions, like shooting a 10 year old with a gun; I'm simply saying that there are many who join without thinking about these things. I'm certainly not defending it, just saying many are likely naive when they sign the contract.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing. I'm simply thinking out loud in this thread. :P
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:15:40 PM
So sad and awful. I don't know if this guy (or guys if there were more than one) would be considered "insane" though. I mean yes, they were, but I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that. :'(
Iron Maiden wrote a song called "Afraid to Shoot Strangers"
In a way this is what war is about for the soldier. It is their job to shoot strangers.
Each side has their ideals, but generally the first casualty of war is the truth. The soldiers don't even need to know the truth, it is their job to be obedient, to do as they are told. They are not there to make political or philosophical judgments.
They are there to do as they are told, to act as they have been trained.
I would not like to be a soldier, I'm far too opinionated, I ask why too often, I am simply not very good at doing what I am told.
'No proof' in Afghan massacre suspect Sgt Bales case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17454316)
QuoteThe lawyer representing a US soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians in their homes has said there is little proof of his client's guilt.
John Henry Browne said there was "no forensic evidence" against Staff Sgt Robert Bales and "no confession".
He also dismissed reports suggesting Sgt Bales, 38, was having financial troubles as irrelevant to the case.
Sgt Bales is being held a military detention centre awaiting charges, which are expected this week.
The killings have undermined US relations with Kabul and led to calls for Nato to speed up their planned withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
After meeting with Sgt Bales at a US army base in Kansas, Mr Browne told reporters: "We've all heard the allegations. I don't know that the government has proved much."
Sgt Bales is the only known suspect in the killings - despite repeated Afghan assertions that more than one American was involved.
Mr Browne said he now plans to travel to Afghanistan to gather his own evidence...
I thought he had turned himself in?
Robert Bales to face murder charges over Afghan massacre (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17484186)
QuoteA US soldier suspected of killing civilians in Afghanistan will be charged with 17 counts of murder, US officials have told the BBC.
Staff Sgt Robert Bales is accused of attacking the villagers in their homes in Kandahar province on 11 March. Most victims were women and children.
Sgt Bales, 38, was later moved to a military prison in the US after being transported from Afghanistan to Kuwait.
He could face the death penalty if convicted...
I don't know if he turned himself in or not, but turning yourself in is not an admission of guilt. It's just that you know they are after you for some reason, so instead of making them chase you, you hand yourself over. The lawyer is posturing for his case right now, perhaps trying to get the Judge Advocate General to agree to a plea bargain of some sort.
Since the murders occured on foreign soil, I think they should use whatever resources they can to get to the bottom of it.
Get a few forensic teams out there, dig up the corpses, get as close to the bottom of it as possible. Then, if the evidence still points to that guy, convict his ass and preferably throw him in an Afghan jail.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 02:38:33 PM
Since the murders occured on foreign soil, I think they should use whatever resources they can to get to the bottom of it.
Get a few forensic teams out there, dig up the corpses, get as close to the bottom of it as possible. Then, if the evidence still points to that guy, convict his ass and preferably throw him in an Afghan jail.
They can't do that as the Afghans agreed that charges brought against members of foreign forces would not be tried in Afghanistan but in the home country of the accused. This was required before American and NATO forces would intervene.
I'm not talking about who will judge the guy - just whos jail he will be tossed in if found guilty.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
I'm not talking about who will judge the guy - just whos jail he will be tossed in if found guilty.
Ah! I'd think he'd end up in a US military prison.
Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2012, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
I'm not talking about who will judge the guy - just whos jail he will be tossed in if found guilty.
Ah! I'd think he'd end up in a US military prison.
That universally annoys me. If you did a crime in a certain country, even if the trial takes place somewhere else, you should do time in that country. Otherwise, how has that country's society taken its revenge on your criminal ass?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2012, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
I'm not talking about who will judge the guy - just whos jail he will be tossed in if found guilty.
Ah! I'd think he'd end up in a US military prison.
That universally annoys me. If you did a crime in a certain country, even if the trial takes place somewhere else, you should do time in that country. Otherwise, how has that country's society taken its revenge on your criminal ass?
A cage is a cage anywhere on Earth and if you're put to death the same is the case. But I understand that the relatives of the victims could well feel that a cage in America would be a cushy number in comparison to an Afghan cage.
Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2012, 06:41:29 PM
A cage is a cage anywhere on Earth and if you're put to death the same is the case. But I understand that the relatives of the victims could well feel that a cage in America would be a cushy number in comparison to an Afghan cage.
Actually, a cage is not really a cage - some cages have the Interwebs and food. Others have roaches and a VERY big guy on the top bunk. That, however, is not really the point. If you are supposed to pay for your crime by spending time in jail, how does it make sense to pay for a crime to a society other than the one it was comitted against?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 23, 2012, 06:52:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2012, 06:41:29 PM
A cage is a cage anywhere on Earth and if you're put to death the same is the case. But I understand that the relatives of the victims could well feel that a cage in America would be a cushy number in comparison to an Afghan cage.
Actually, a cage is not really a cage - some cages have the Interwebs and food. Others have roaches and a VERY big guy on the top bunk. That, however, is not really the point. If you are supposed to pay for your crime by spending time in jail, how does it make sense to pay for a crime to a society other than the one it was comitted against?
It doesn't really. The only issue here is that the laws the soldier broke were in place when he committed the crime (if he did). So the laws in place at the time prevail. One may not like that but that's what'll happen.
Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2012, 06:56:19 PM
So the laws in place at the time prevail. One may not like that but that's what'll happen.
Weeell... An Asmo can hope. (Actually, no, he seems quite incapable of hoping... But still)