NOBAMA MOVEMENT SPREADS ACROSS THE NATION
Posted on 07/28/2008 6:44:59 PM PDT by freema
President Bush on Monday approved the execution of an Army private, administration officials said. It was the first time in over a half-century that a president has affirmed a death sentence for a member of the U.S. military.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
This depends on how war is waged on Iran. We have got to stop fighting PC wars.
We either annihalate the enemy in self-defense or we should not go in. Gulf War I was justified, Saddam attacking neighbors threatening our oil supply. Iraq two is debatable but given faulty intelligence (can we stop buying from Russia now, there plane parts are fine, thanks don’t need the rest) it seemed justified and Saddam was breaking ALL agreements settled in Gulf War I.
But we got nothing out of Iraq. Should have claimed all the oil fields and sold it on the open market. The world would have forgiven us quickly for cheaper oil. If we attack Iran we had better go all out.
They have atomic weapons and soon will have hydrogen weapons. If our new policy is annihalation of the enemy while attempting to protect the innocents then fine. But how do you explain Fallujah? That rat Al Sadr should have been publically tried and executed by the U.S. military in a dark, private room. He should have dissapeared. That is what war is. Some of you proud warriors from the Vietnam era problably feel the same in a lot of ways.
Guess what? Our primary competitors are Russia and China. They learned much from our spending one billion dollars in 1989 in Afghanistan to collapse a Soviet economy. The counter strategy is brutal and nasty but our men in uniform don’t have issue with that. They have issue with not pulling out all stops when fired upon so some political jackass doesn’t feel afraid of what global media broadcasted from Al Jazeera and the NYT will say. Let’s call a spade a spade here.
Based on the above criteria, Sergeant Hasan Akbar, should be executed ASAP, to prevent any other “plants” from acting as he did.
Start with the State Department.
Who wants to bet this will either be used to “prove” Bush doesn’t care about our troops or that the military produces nothing but criminals?
Is it tacky to say, “Too bad”?
Colonel, USAFR
Probably walking him out of the courtroom when it was taken - and they don’t do the “Branded” thing of ripping them off his uniform and breaking his sword over a knee anymore. Though maybe they should have to some of the people I prosecuted (and defended) while on active duty.
Colonel, USAFR
USAF doesn’t have field manuals. They have Air Force Instructions and Air Force Manuals. When the gallows guidance was published, we had Air Force Regulations. Tell you the truth, it’s in a box in the attic that I haven’t looked in since I got off active duty, so it may in fact be a Manual and not a Regulation. It’s summer in San Antonio (and I’m pulling duty in Colorado at the moment), so I’m not gonna pull it out of the attic!
Colonel, USAFR
More's the pity, although Non-Coms and Enlisted don't have swords. ;^)
I also agree with what yefragetuwrabrumuy posted up in #73:
That was the understanding I had back in the 60's, and yet it was also a given that only truthful actions would be used against defendants.
btt
Remember the photo is from 1988. The Army was really being tough on the regulations for mustaches. You wouldn't be the first to notice the similarity of the mustache style allowed by the Army during that period to that worn by Corporal Schicklegruber.
US Marine NCOs do, in certain circumstances.
USMC NCO with M1859 NCO sword.
I know -- a rose by any other name ... ... ;^)
Another one who comes to mind in this situation was the past Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Aznar. He wore a moustache, and it was to cover a cleft palate, or a scar from surgery. He was a really good-looking fellow too! But I never would’ve guessed with either of these guys wearing one for that reason!
This guy's getting needled because his lawyers expended all their ammo, not because he's been singled out by the CIC.
The Gitmo angle was one I had not considered. That one seems to me to be the more plausible reason.
Mine or theirs'? :-)
While I agree that 20 years is probably a bit too much, I’d MUCH rather live in a country that takes too long, and is too deliberative, than to live in one that goes through the process too quickly.
That's not what the jury said...but if you listen close enough, the screaming sounds like laughter...(careful with that axe, Eugene)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.