Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 06/16/2003 View Sun 06/15/2003 View Sat 06/14/2003 View Fri 06/13/2003 View Thu 06/12/2003 View Wed 06/11/2003 View Tue 06/10/2003
1
2003-06-16 Home Front
Hearing in military slayings today
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tu3031 2003-06-16 08:51 am|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Hmm...

"3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life"

I'd say rolling grenades into an occupied tent is "inherently dangerous", and certainly "evinced a disregard of human life".

They have him pegged. Its only a matter of which arm the needle goes into.
Posted by OldSpook 6/17/2003 3:02:17 AM||   6/17/2003 3:02:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Saw a report on TV news this morning Akbar's Mother say's"They are picking on my poor baby".Not an exact qoute
Posted by raptor  2003-06-16 09:37:12||   2003-06-16 09:37:12|| Front Page Top

#3 Too bad. So sad. The dufus killed two officers and injured 14 more while in a combat zone and expects to get a walk. He should get a walk-right off the end of a plank and experience a long fall on a short rope.
Posted by Kirk 2003-06-16 09:43:54||   2003-06-16 09:43:54|| Front Page Top

#4 Another reason why I am Fed UP....a black muslim, in the army, killing his own men...WTF???
Posted by Fed UP 2003-06-16 10:43:29||   2003-06-16 10:43:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Under the UCMJ you are guilty until proven innocent.
Lotsa luck with the defense, kid. Hope you like rasins.
Posted by mojo 2003-06-16 10:48:45||   2003-06-16 10:48:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Fed UP - being black and being muslim has less to do with it than one might think. My guess is that there are far deeper problems with this guy than his religion (from a military POV). I went through the middle eastern orientation course with a black muslim green beret.

Completely different type of man.

As for the UCMJ, yeah it's harsh, it's supposed to be harsh. Military men and women are held to a higher standard of discipline. It's necessary for the job to be done.

In most cases however, it takes a lot to get to the point of a court martial. So it's not like the UCMJ is just there to screw Joe. By the time you get to staring that jury in the face, you've screwed up BIG TIME.

Just like this guy did.

And speaking as an Enlisted Soldier I do not feel that the UCMJ proceedings are slanted against lower ranking members. As a lower ranking member it takes a lot more to ever get to a courtmartial than an officer, those guys actually do have a lot more to lose as far as their careers go.

Since they are supposed to be leaders, their decisions can get them in trouble. Wheres I only have to convince the jury that I made the best judgement call that I could, under the circumstances.

-DS
"the horns hold up the halo."
Posted by DeviantSaint 2003-06-16 11:54:43|| [www.livejournal.com/~deviantsaint]  2003-06-16 11:54:43|| Front Page Top

#7 The UCMJ subchapter X, article 118:
918. ART. 118. MURDER

Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he--

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.
Posted by Chuck (not Taylor)  2003-06-16 14:04:10|| [blog.simmins.org]  2003-06-16 14:04:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Ok I will play barracks Lawyer. Akbar should take the stand and cry his eyes out. Military juries are very soft on criminals. He might do some hard time but I doubt he will swing. If he comes out swinging (ie they are all racists) no one (military) will believe that.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)  2003-06-16 15:26:33||   2003-06-16 15:26:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Gentlemen,

Kindly knock off the nonsense about the UCMJ having the defendant “guilty until proven innocent”. Having actually served on Courts-Martial [notice the use of the correct plural, a rare event] and civilian juries, I can state with some authority that the former dispenses far better justice than the latter. Mainly because defense counsel cannot pack the jury with persons who do not read the papers, have no education or have below average annual earnings [I have been excused from three juries for EXACTLY those reasons!]. Court-martial Boards, in my experience, take the issues of justice and objective truth far more seriously than civilian juries. I have voted three men acquitted of crimes they obviously committed, when the prosecution failed to adequately prove the case [he botched it despite signed confessions!]. In fact, our Court-Martial board unanimously voted “not guilty”, and demanded better “chain of custody” and “Mirandizing” training for the MPs in the same document!

BTW, the article 32 investigation [which has NO civilian counterpart] is conducted by a NON-LAWYER Officer chosen at random. He determines whether there is a case or not. Only after he affirms that a) the crime took place and b) the prosecution has reasonable evidence [specified list for each charge] to accuse someone. This is specifically intended to prevent spurious prosecutions [I have personally scotched bogus charges by a military prosecutor who had more zeal than hard evidence]. The hearing happens afterwards.
Posted by emery  2003-06-16 17:13:49||   2003-06-16 17:13:49|| Front Page Top

#10 Considering many current interpretations of Islam blatantly and publicly say that you must stand up for a fellow muslim, even if that muslim is wrong and defend them against the kuffar, then the fact that he is Islamic IS relevant:

the USA is by definition a Kuffar state and Iraq is a country of muslims.

Therefore if this man subscribes to Islamofascism not secular islam then his religion has everything to do with it - it would literally order him if he wants to be true to his faith, to kill his own army comrades to defend the wrong muslim : Saddam.

If he is an islamofascist, he had a choice: do what the US government tells me to do or do what Allah tells me to do.

He (may) have chosen Allah.

Of course it could have been for other reasons as well - but this is at least possible and deserves proper scrutiny.
Posted by Anon1 2003-06-16 17:29:51||   2003-06-16 17:29:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Emery, Exactly! When the Military goes to trial they have a pretty good case built. Unless of course they have some slipshod lawyer who doesn't do their job. But a military jury is every bit fickle about justice. Just because they may be educated and read papers doesn't mean they will all vote for capital punishment. If Hassan sobs to the Jury they more than likely will not sentence him to death. Just my barracks lawyer two-cents.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)  2003-06-16 18:02:51||   2003-06-16 18:02:51|| Front Page Top

#12 Bull Anon1,if he felt that strongly about it,all he had to do was tell his CO about how he felt attacking a fellow Muslim or Muslim country and his ass would have been on the first transport out.
Posted by raptor  2003-06-16 18:37:24||   2003-06-16 18:37:24|| Front Page Top

#13 Amen Raptor! If this piece of shit did not want to go and fight in Iraq he had ample time to speak out. The fact that he was NOT going to move forward with the unit tells me the CO probably was going to send him back. Also he DID not have to stay in the military, if he hated it so much they would have cut him loose.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)  2003-06-16 19:52:25||   2003-06-16 19:52:25|| Front Page Top

#14 Hmm...

"3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life"

I'd say rolling grenades into an occupied tent is "inherently dangerous", and certainly "evinced a disregard of human life".

They have him pegged. Its only a matter of which arm the needle goes into.
Posted by OldSpook 2003-06-17 03:02:17||   2003-06-17 03:02:17|| Front Page Top

09:47 Tresho
08:49 raptor
08:38 raptor
08:23 raptor
08:12 El Supremo
03:02 OldSpook
02:58 Vea Victis
02:56 OldSpook
02:54 OldSpook
02:01 Mike Kozlowski
23:24 Anonymous
23:13 PD
23:02 Old Patriot
22:40 PD
22:36 Old Patriot
22:20 Mike N.
22:19 Anonymous
22:08 True German Ally
21:41 Dripping Sarcasm
21:11 RW
20:57 Anonymous
20:54 RW
20:49 Matt
20:49 Mike









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com