and utter tragedy of this case does not, ultimately, detract from the argument that our government should not be given the power to use the justice system to kill.

I am not saying the death penalty is appropriate because I am moved by the enormity of the crime. Far from it.

I am saying it is appropriate because combat justice is already outside the box of civil law.

I think it is reasonable for the military to have the death penalty in military law because our whole conception of morality, life and death becomes absurdist in the context of war. I do not believe in the death penalty in civil law.

It's a complicated argument about the concept of law and such, not having much to do with the evil of the crime. That's why I speciffied a hypothetical. I am not worked up about this case in specific.

punishment in a war context because, what the hell, "morality, life and death become absurdist in the context of war" anyway.

Adding a cup of absurdity to an ocean already polluted with unimaginable absurdity may seem like nothing, but it is still pollution.

Do you own a prison and are worried about losing inmates to the death penalty

The guy should be turned over to the afghans they can do what they want with that scumbag

I think that as they say war is hell. I don't know if you've been there or not, but I can say that people do unimaginable things in what is an unimaginable time. There should be punishments for those who exceed ROE or commit war crimes, but I don't think the death penalty "makes more sense" for a service member than it does for anyone else. I think it makes the same amount of sense as it does in criminal law, which in my view is zero.

The soldier/Marine/airman/seaman didn't choose to go to war. They were ordered there. So subjecting them to deeper sanctions seems to miss the target; it seems to single out service personnel. I guess I don't understand that.

I am not suggesting that acts in war are more wicked -- they are actually more justifiable because the whole context is insane. As you say, people do things they would do in no other context, and in a situation not of their chosing.

I have little interest in punishing soldiers, and certainly not an enhanced interest. I sympathize.

But I do think the military should be able to say, "If you muder civilians you will be shot. If you rape civilians you will be shot."

The stakes are different, the environment is different... it is hell, as you say, and thus unique and may well pose different justice questions than civil society.

I have no emotional interest in punishing this fellow. My interest is in the military, in the context of war, demonstrating to the civilian populace that we take their lives as seriously as ours.

Think about your argument (these are your words, I'm copying and pasting them): ""If you muder civilians you will be shot. If you rape civilians you will be shot."

That's one way of doing it, but you want a different way for civilians. That's an inherent punishment on a soldier/Marine/airman/sailor, as it says that even though your environment is MUCH more challenging than most civilian jobs, we're going to punish you MORE harshly irrespective of that. That's an intrinsic punishment.

My own view is that all service personnel must be rotated OUT of the combat zone with much more regularity so as to not become battle fatigued. Not always, but many times when these atrocities occur it's because someone's nerves are just fried from the constancy of it all. When and where atrocities do occur, they should be punished with the same accelerated form of justice that civilians receive. Otherwise you're doling out a punishment for being a soldier, intrinsically otherwise you'd say that for the same crimes a civilian should incur the same penalty.

I realize you're not intentionally setting out to "fry" Marines. I know that. All I'm suggesting is the net effect of your plan *IS* to punish someone for serving you in an extremely unfriendly environment, and you're doing so because you're singling them out for this elevated level of punishment. That's a service penalty, basically.

"My interest is in the military, in the context of war, demonstrating to the civilian populace that we take their lives as seriously as ours."

So if you oppose it in civil law, you are OK with saying to our civilian population "we take DON'T their (the victim's) lives as seriously as ours. (the criminal's)"?

If you oppose it for civil law because of the chance that an innocent person is executed, why is that any different for military members?

combat.

It would have to be a specifically defined set of circumstances, though, because we could not have civilian populations full of yahoos asking us to hand over soldiers.

For example, if it is clear that a soldier or group of soldiers committed an atrocity of their own accord, under no battle duress, and wantonly killed civilians and noncombatants, then I say we should wash our hands of them. Dishonorably discharge them and turn them over to the local authorities. Their fate afterward should be of no concern to us.

I guess you could make a moral case for it, but it would be wildly unpopular in both the military and probably in the civilian population too.

Never going to happen.

It might improve morale to know that a certain level of depravity won't be able to hide behind American citizenship. If an American civilian, for example, goes to a foreign country and kills someone there would be no hesitancy about letting them suffer the local consequences. Being in the military demands a higher standard of morality than being a civilian. One soldier's immoral act can jeopardize the lives of other soldiers, not to mention the country's mission.

This would be the military essentially saying:

'We won't have your back in certain circumstances. If you screw up bad enough, you will be thrown to the wolves and we won't care what they do to you.'

As bad as the crime was, I cannot see it as a justification for more killing.

The point is that war is different. If the US military has the power and right to blow people up on suspiscion (which is the assumption of the whole war racket) then it ought have the power to enforce discipline within its own ranks by punishing war crimes outside the norms of civil justice.

That's the point... all normal arguments about the death penalty hae already flown the coop in the context of war. It's war.

If the military wants the death penalty in the military code of justice for application to things that occur in war then I do not object, conceptually. And if the military doesn't want it then that's fine too.

being against it requires that you be against it in ALL circumstances

And you're just as dead no matter what the circumstances of your killing may be- either in war or not.

that reviews this case from initial investigation to any trial to punishment and to any future changes in punishment (I don't see how there should be any).

The above is the bare minimum.

The Afghanis must be involved from start to finish. Even that is probably not going to mitigate the unbelievable damage that has been done. But it's something that has to happen. The Afghan people will not abide some form of secretive "justice" on our part, as someone is disappeared into the fog of our bureaucracy.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

The servicemember or any servicemember associated with this act would absolutely be in jeopardy of execution as punishment.

Without question, Calley was a beast and should have been put down like one. Without question. Just like this soldier's alleged actions, there was no soldiering, honor or anything else involved except a desire to murder the innocent. His orders were so heinous a soldier under his command shot himself rather than follow them. In an attempt to stop the mass murder, Hugh Thompson explicitly commanded his helicopter crew to gun down Cally or any other soldiers if they continued the massacre- and he secured their promise to do so.

Thirty years to the day that Hugh Thompson gave this order he and his crew were awarded the Soldier's Medal, the Army's highest award for bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy.

PB

The same punishment I believe that should be given to anyone who murders.

to duty after his traumatic brain injury deserve the death penalty.

for the Veteran Adm to admit his TBI which effected his behavior. I agree with you, they are culpable too,

Never, ever, no matter the circumstances. It is nothing but revenge killing, sponsored by the state.